RENACER study: Assessment of 12-month efficacy and safety of 168 certolizumab PEGol rheumatoid arthritis-treated patients from a Spanish multicenter national database.

OBJECTIVE: To assess effectiveness and safety of certolizumab PEGol (CZP) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients after 12 months of treatment and to detect predictors of response. METHODS: Observational longitudinal prospective study of RA patients from 35 sites in Spain. Variables (baseline, 3- and 12-month assessment): sociodemographics, previous Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug (DMARD) and previous Biological Therapies (BT) use; TJC, SJC, ESR, CRP, DAS28, SDAI. Response variables: TJC, SJC, CRP, ESR, and steroids dose reductions, EULAR Moderate/Good Response, SDAI response and remission, DAS28 remission. Safety variables: discontinuation due to side-effects. Descriptive, comparative and Logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: We included 168 patients: 79.2% women, mean age 54.5 years (±13.2 SD), mean disease duration 7.5 years (±7.3 SD). Mean number of prior DMARD: 1.4 (±1.2 SD), mean number of prior BT was 0.8 (±1.1). Mean time on CZP was 9.8 months (±3.4 SD). A total of 71.4% were receiving CZP at 12-month assessment. Baseline predictors of response: lower prior number DMARD; low number prior BT; higher CRP, ESR, TJC, SJC, DAS28 and SDAI (p < 0.05) scores. A 25/46.4% Moderate/Good Response, a 20% SDAI remission, and a 44% DAS28 remission were observed. We observed 48 discontinuations (28.6%), 31 due to partial or complete ineffectiveness, and 17 due to side-effects. CONCLUSIONS: CZP showed benefit in severe RA patients, with significant reduction of all effectiveness parameters, despite the high prevalence of previous BT exposure in our series. We found CRP, ESR, prior DMARD/BT number, TJC, SJC, DAS28, and SDAI as baseline predictors of response. CZP was mostly well tolerated.

Elbow clinical, ultrasonographic and radiographic study in patients with inflammatory joint diseases.

The main objective of this cross-sectional observational study was to investigate the relationship between clinical, ultrasonographic (US) and radiographic elbow features in patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD). The secondary objective was to evaluate the association between regional clinical elbow diagnoses and imaging findings. Consecutive patients with IJD attending follow-up visits were assessed for elbow pain and standardized elbow examination. Seven regional clinical diagnoses were defined. Digital elbow radiographs were read for 9 abnormalities. A standardized elbow grayscale (GS) and power Doppler (PD) scan recorded 13 defined abnormalities. Analysis encompassed 361 clinical, 361 US and 340 radiographic elbow assessments from 181 patients. US and clinical assessments showed an overall higher agreement than radiographic and clinical assessments (68.8 vs 59.1%, p = 0.001). When structural US abnormalities were compared with radiographic findings, agreement was slightly higher than when comparing all US abnormalities with radiographic findings (77.3%, k 0.533 and 73.5%, k 0.492). Enthesophytes, the most common abnormalities, were not associated with clinical findings. Subclinical US-synovitis and US-enthesopathy were found, respectively, in 17.3 and 14.1% of the clinically normal elbows. Clinical elbow arthritis prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) agreement was good for radiographic fat pad sign, PD-synovitis and GS-synovitis. Clinical elbow enthesopathy PABAK agreement was moderate for GS-enthesopathy and radiographic calcifications. US showed acceptable agreement with clinical and radiographic assessments for detecting elbow inflammatory and structural abnormalities in patients with IJD. Because US detected more abnormalities than radiography and has the capability to detect more subclinical abnormalities, US may be potentially used as a first-line elbow diagnostic tool in this clinical setting.

Artrosis interfalángica sintomática y asintomática: un estudio ecográfico / Symptomatic and asymptomatic interphalageal osteoarthritis: an ultrasonographic study

Objetivo. Pocos estudios han examinado si existen diferencias morfológicas detectables con ecografía entre las articulaciones sintomáticas y las que no lo son en pacientes con artrosis. Este estudio describe y compara los hallazgos clínicos, radiológicos y ecográficos de los pacientes con artrosis interfalángica proximal (IFP) y/o distal (IFD) que tienen articulaciones con y sin dolor. Métodos. Prospectivamente, se incluyó a pacientes con artrosis IFP y/o IFD según los criterios ACR. El reumatólogo clínico eligió hasta un máximo de 3 articulaciones dolorosas y 3 articulaciones no dolorosas de localización simétrica en cada paciente para formar 2 cohortes de artrosis: grupo con dolor (GD) y grupo sin dolor (GSD). La radiografía simple postero-anterior de las manos fue leída por un reumatólogo según las recomendaciones del atlas OARSI, ciego a toda información clínica y ecográfica. El estudio ecográfico fue realizado por un reumatólogo en las articulaciones previamente seleccionadas por el clínico ciego a los datos clínicos y radiológicos. Se registraron como ausente o presente: osteofitos, pinzamiento articular, sinovitis, señal Doppler intraarticular, erosiones y visualización del cartílago. Se realizó un estudio de fiabilidad intralector para la radiología y para la ecografía. Resultados. Se estudió un total de 50 articulaciones en cada cohorte de 20 mujeres diestras de 61,85 años de edad (46-73) con artrosis IFP y IFD diagnosticada hace 6,8 años (1-17 años). El 70% de las articulaciones del GD y GSD se localizaron en la mano derecha e izquierda, respectivamente. El GD tenía significativamente más osteofitos, sinovitis y ausencia de cartílago que el GSD. La fiabilidad interlector radiológico y ecográfico fue excelente. Conclusión. La ecografía detecta más daño estructural y sinovitis en las IFP y/o IFD artrósicas que presentan dolor (AU)

Objective: To date few studies have examined whether ultrasonography can depict morphologic differences in painful and painless osteoarthritis (OA). This study describes and compares the clinical, radiographic and ultrasonographic findings of patients with both painful and painless proximal interphalgeal (PIP) and/or distal interphalgeal (DIP) OA. Methods: Patients with PIP and/or DIP OA (ACR criteria) were prospectively recruited. The clinical rheumatologist chose up to 3 painful joints and up to 3 painless symmetric joints in each patient to define 2 cohorts of OA: symptomatic (SG) and asymptomatic (ASG). A conventional postero-anterior hand x ray was performed and read by one rheumatologist following the OARSI atlas, blinded to clinical and sonographic data. Ultrasound (US) was performed by an experienced rheumatologist, blinded to both clinical and radiographic data in joints previously selected by the clinical rheumatologist. US-pathology was assessed as present or absent as defined in previous reports: osteophytes, joint space narrowing, synovitis, intra-articular power doppler signal, intra-articular bony erosion, and visualization of cartilage. Radiographic and ultrasonographic intrareader reliability test was performed. Results: A total of 50 joints in the SG and ASG were included from 20 right handed women aged 61.85 (46-73) years with PIP and DIP OA diagnosed 6.8 (1-17) years ago. 70% SG joints and ASG were right and left sided respectively. The SG showed significantly more osteophytes, synovitis and non-visualization of joint cartilage. Intrareader radiographic and ultrasonographic agreement was excellent. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that painful PIP and/or DIP OA have more ultrasonographic structural changes and synovitis (AU)

Symptomatic and asymptomatic interphalageal osteoarthritis: An ultrasonographic study.

OBJECTIVE: To date few studies have examined whether ultrasonography can depict morphologic differences in painful and painless osteoarthritis (OA). This study describes and compares the clinical, radiographic and ultrasonographic findings of patients with both painful and painless proximal interphalgeal (PIP) and/or distal interphalgeal (DIP) OA. METHODS: Patients with PIP and/or DIP OA (ACR criteria) were prospectively recruited. The clinical rheumatologist chose up to 3 painful joints and up to 3 painless symmetric joints in each patient to define 2 cohorts of OA: symptomatic (SG) and asymptomatic (ASG). A conventional postero-anterior hand x ray was performed and read by one rheumatologist following the OARSI atlas, blinded to clinical and sonographic data. Ultrasound (US) was performed by an experienced rheumatologist, blinded to both clinical and radiographic data in joints previously selected by the clinical rheumatologist. US-pathology was assessed as present or absent as defined in previous reports: osteophytes, joint space narrowing, synovitis, intra-articular power doppler signal, intra-articular bony erosion, and visualization of cartilage. Radiographic and ultrasonographic intrareader reliability test was performed. RESULTS: A total of 50 joints in the SG and ASG were included from 20 right handed women aged 61.85 (46-73) years with PIP and DIP OA diagnosed 6.8 (1-17) years ago. 70% SG joints and ASG were right and left sided respectively. The SG showed significantly more osteophytes, synovitis and non-visualization of joint cartilage. Intrareader radiographic and ultrasonographic agreement was excellent. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that painful PIP and/or DIP OA have more ultrasonographic structural changes and synovitis.