Arthroscopic synovectomy versus intra-articular injection of corticosteroids for the management of refractory psoriatic or rheumatoid arthritis of the wrist: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (ARCTIC trial).

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are inflammatory diseases that often affect the wrist and, when affected, can lead to impaired wrist function and progressive joint destruction if inadequately treated. Standard care consists primarily of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), often supported by systemic corticosteroids or intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACSI). IACSI, despite their use worldwide, show poor response in a substantial group of patients. Arthroscopic synovectomy of the wrist is the surgical removal of synovitis with the goal to relieve pain and improve wrist function. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate wrist function following arthroscopic synovectomy compared to IACSI in therapy-resistant patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. Secondary objectives include radiologic progress, disease activity, health-related quality of life, work participation and cost-effectiveness during a 1-year follow-up. METHODS: This protocol describes a prospective, randomized controlled trial. RA and PsA patients are eligible with prominent wrist synovitis objectified by a rheumatologist, not responding to at least 3 months of conventional DMARDs and naïve to biological DMARDs. For 90% power, an expected loss to follow-up of 5%, an expected difference in mean Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE, range 0-100) of 11 and α = 0.05, a total sample size of 80 patients will be sufficient to detect an effect size. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio for arthroscopic synovectomy with deposition of corticosteroids or for IACSI. Removed synovial tissue will be stored for an ancillary study on disease profiling. The primary outcome is wrist function, measured with the PRWE score after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include wrist mobility and grip strength, pain scores, DAS28, EQ-5D-5L, disease progression on ultrasound and radiographs, complications and secondary treatment. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed, based on healthcare costs (iMCQ questionnaire) and productivity loss (iPCQ questionnaire). Follow-up will be scheduled at 3, 6 and 12 months. Patient burden is minimized by combining study visits with regular follow-ups. DISCUSSION: Persistent wrist arthritis continues to be a problem for patients with rheumatic joint disease leading to disability. This is the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect, safety and feasibility of arthroscopic synovectomy of the wrist in these patients compared to IACSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial registry (CCMO), NL74744.100.20. Registered on 30 November 2020. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT04755127. Registered after the start of inclusion on 15 February 2021.

A systematic review on time trend incidence of rheumatoid arthritis in outpatient rheumatology clinics.

Objectives: To classify patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in an earlier stage of the disease, the ACR/EULAR classification criteria were updated in 2010. These criteria might have led to an increased incidence of RA in the rheumatology clinic. Since a higher incidence increases the socio-economic burden of RA, it is worthwhile to evaluate whether there is a time effect. Materials and methods: A systematic review was conducted using Embase, Medline Ovid, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science from database inception to February 2021. Included were only articles that addressed incidence rates of rheumatoid arthritis from rheumatology outpatient clinics. Results: Of the 6,289 publications only 243 publications on RA were found eligible for full-text review. Nine studies were included reporting incidence. The pooled incidence for RA was 11% (95% CI 6-16%) per year. Over time the incidence increased after the introduction of the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria. Overall there was a high intragroup heterogeneity (I 2 = 97.93%, p < 0.001), caused by geographical area, study design and differences in case definitions. Conclusion: Although the incidence seems to increase after the introduction of the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria, no conclusions can be drawn on this time effect due to heterogeneity.