Search

Objectives To investigate whether meticulously following a treat-to-target (T2T)-strategy in daily clinical practice will lead to less radiographic progression in patients with active RA who start (new) DMARD-therapy. Methods Patients with RA from 10 countries starting/changing conventional synthetic or biologic DMARDs because of active RA, and in whom treatment intensification according to the T2T principle was pursued, were assessed for disease activity every 3 months for 2 years (RA-BIODAM cohort). The primary outcome was the change in Sharp-van der Heijde (SvdH) score, assessed every 6 months. Per 3-month interval DAS44-T2T could be followed zero, one or two times (in a total of two visits). The relation between T2T intensity and change in SvdH-score was modelled by generalized estimating equations. Results In total, 511 patients were included [mean (S.D.) age: 56 (13) years; 76% female]. Mean 2-year SvdH progression was 2.2 (4.1) units (median: 1 unit). A stricter application of T2T in a 3-month interval did not reduce progression in the same 6-month interval [parameter estimates (for yes vs no): +0.15 units (95% CI: −0.04, 0.33) for 2 vs 0 visits; and +0.08 units (−0.06; 0.22) for 1 vs 0 visits] nor did it reduce progression in the subsequent 6-month interval. Conclusions In this daily practice cohort, following T2T principles more meticulously did not result in less radiographic progression than a somewhat more lenient attitude towards T2T. One possible interpretation of these results is that the intention to apply T2T already suffices and that a more stringent approach does not further improve outcome., Objectives: To investigate whether meticulously following a treat-To-Target (T2T)-strategy in daily clinical practice will lead to less radiographic progression in patients with active RA who start (new) DMARD-Therapy. Methods: Patients with RA from 10 countries starting/changing conventional synthetic or biologic DMARDs because of active RA, and in whom treatment intensification according to the T2T principle was pursued, were assessed for disease activity every 3 months for 2 years (RA-BIODAM cohort). The primary outcome was the change in Sharp-van der Heijde (SvdH) score, assessed every 6 months. Per 3-month interval DAS44-T2T could be followed zero, one or two times (in a total of two visits). The relation between T2T intensity and change in SvdH-score was modelled by generalized estimating equations. Results: In total, 511 patients were included [mean (s.d.) age: 56 (13) years; 76% female]. Mean 2-year SvdH progression was 2.2 (4.1) units (median: 1 unit). A stricter application of T2T in a 3-month interval did not reduce progression in the same 6-month interval [parameter estimates (for yes vs no): +0.15 units (95% CI:-0.04, 0.33) for 2 vs 0 visits; and +0.08 units (-0.06; 0.22) for 1 vs 0 visits] nor did it reduce progression in the subsequent 6-month interval. Conclusions: In this daily practice cohort, following T2T principles more meticulously did not result in less radiographic progression than a somewhat more lenient attitude towards T2T. One possible interpretation of these results is that the intention to apply T2T already suffices and that a more stringent approach does not further improve outcome.

The second part of the Guidelines and Recommendations for Musculoskeletal Ultrasound (MSUS), produced under the auspices of EFSUMB, following the same methodology as for Part 1, provides information and recommendations on the use of this imaging modality for joint pathology, pediatric applications, and musculoskeletal ultrasound-guided procedures. Clinical application, practical points, limitations, and artifacts are described and discussed for every joint or procedure. The document is intended to guide clinical users in their daily practice.

Der erste Teil der Leitlinien und Empfehlungen für den muskuloskelettalen Ultraschall, die unter der Schirmherrschaft der European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) erstellt wurden, enthält Informationen über den Einsatz des muskuloskelettalen Ultraschalls zur Beurteilung von extraartikulären Strukturen (Muskeln, Sehnen, Gelenke, Bänder, Knochen, Schleimbeutel, Faszien, Nerven, Haut, subkutanes Gewebe und Nägel) und deren Pathologien. Für jede Struktur werden die klinische Anwendung, praktische Punkte, Einschränkungen und Artefakte beschrieben und diskutiert. Nach einer ausführlichen Literaturrecherche wurden die Empfehlungen gemäß den Kriterien des Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine und den GRADE-Kriterien entwickelt, und der Konsensgrad wurde durch die Delphi-Methode ermittelt. Das Dokument ist als Leitfaden für klinische Anwender in der täglichen Praxis gedacht., The first part of the guidelines and recommendations for musculoskeletal ultrasound, produced under the auspices of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB), provides information about the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound for assessing extraarticular structures (muscles, tendons, entheses, ligaments, bones, bursae, fasciae, nerves, skin, subcutaneous tissues, and nails) and their pathologies. Clinical applications, practical points, limitations, and artifacts are described and discussed for every structure. After an extensive literature review, the recommendations have been developed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and GRADE criteria and the consensus level was established through a Delphi process. The document is intended to guide clinical users in their daily practice.

Anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) often precede onset of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by years, and there is an urgent clinical need for predictors of arthritis development among such at-risk patients. This study assesses the prognostic value of ultrasound for arthritis development among ACPA-positive patients with musculoskeletal pain. We prospectively followed 82 ACPA-positive patients without clinical signs of arthritis at baseline. Ultrasound at baseline assessed synovial hypertrophy, inflammatory activity by power Doppler, and erosions in small joints of hands and feet. We applied Cox regression analyses to examine associations with clinical arthritis development during follow-up (median, 69 months; range, 24-90 months). We also compared the ultrasound findings among the patients to a control group of 100 blood donors without musculoskeletal pain. Clinical arthritis developed in 39/82 patients (48%) after a median of 6 months (range, 1-71 months). One or more ultrasound erosions occurred in 13/82 patients (16%), with none in control subjects (p < 0.001). Clinical arthritis development was more common among patients with baseline ultrasound erosions than those without (77 vs. 42%, p = 0.032), and remained significant in a multivariable Cox regression analysis that included previously described prognostic factors (HR 3.9, 95% CI 1.6-9.4, p = 0.003). Ultrasound-detected tenosynovitis was more frequent among the patients and associated with clinical arthritis development in a univariable analysis (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.7, p = 0.031), but did not remain statistically significant in multivariable analysis. Thus, bone erosions detected by ultrasound are independent predictors of clinical arthritis development in an ACPA-positive at-risk population., Funding Agencies|Swedish Society of Medicine [SLS-682741]; King Gustaf Vs 80-year foundation [FAI-2017-0420]; Swedish Rheumatism Association [R-754141]; Ostergotland County Council [LIO-700501]

The first part of the guidelines and recommendations for musculoskeletal ultrasound, produced under the auspices of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB), provides information about the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound for assessing extraarticular structures (muscles, tendons, entheses, ligaments, bones, bursae, fasciae, nerves, skin, subcutaneous tissues, and nails) and their pathologies. Clinical applications, practical points, limitations, and artifacts are described and discussed for every structure. After an extensive literature review, the recommendations have been developed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and GRADE criteria and the consensus level was established through a Delphi process. The document is intended to guide clinical users in their daily practice.

Objective: To assess if the right hand, the dominant hand, or the hand with more clinically swollen joints (SwJ) is per se the most inflamed and exhibits the greatest change during treatment and hence preferred for unilateral scoring of synovitis by ultrasound in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Methods: Using data from two previously published Norwegian RA patient cohorts initiating treatment, bilateral metacarpophalangeal joint 1-5, proximal phalangeal joint 2+3, and wrists were evaluated by ultrasound. Using a 0-3 scoring system a grey-scale (GS), power Doppler (PD) and global synovitis score (GLOESS) was calculated for each hand (0-30). For precision, a difference of < ± 3 in sum score was pre-specified as indicating clinically insignificant difference in inflammatory activity for all three scores. Results: Four hundred thirty-seven RA patients were included. Baseline ultrasound inflammation was statistically significantly higher in hands with more vs fewer SwJ ([mean difference, 95%CI] GS sum score 2.21[1.30 to 3.12], PD sum score 1.70 [0.94 to 2.47] and GLOESS 2.31[1.36 to 3.26]) and also exhibited significantly more change for all sum scores at 3 months follow-up (GS sum score 1.34 [0.60 to 2.08], PD sum score 1.17 [0.44 to 1.91], and GLOESS 1.43 [0.63 to 2.22]). No such differences were found between the dominant and the non-dominant or the right and the left hands at any time points. Conclusion: The hand with clinically more SwJ is statistically more inflammatory active according to GS, Doppler, and GLOESS sum scores, exhibits a change during treatment, and is potentially the best choice for unilateral scoring systems.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Ultrasound (US) Working Group (WG) operates research activities for the validation of US as an outcome measurement instrument according to the Filter 2.0 framework.METHODS: Original publications on definitions and scoring systems for pathophysiological manifestations and elementary lesions of various rheumatic disorders were reviewed from the onset of the WG research in 2005.RESULTS: Definitions and scoring systems according to new terminology are provided.CONCLUSION: We have redefined OMERACT US pathology and elementary lesions as well as scoring systems, which are now proposed for OMERACT approval for application in clinical trials.

To develop and test the reliability of a new semiquantitative scoring system for the assessment of cartilage changes by ultrasound in a web-based exercise as well as a patient exercise of patients with RA. Methods: A taskforce of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Ultrasound Working Group performed a systematic literature review on the US assessment of cartilage in RA, followed by a Delphi survey on cartilage changes and a new semiquantitative US scoring system, and finally a web-based exercise as well as a patient exercise. For the web-based exercise, taskforce members scored a dataset of anonymized static images of MCP joints in RA patients and healthy controls, which also contained duplicate images. Subsequently, 12 taskforce members used the same US to score cartilage in MCP and proximal interphalangeal joints of six patients with RA in in a patient reliability exercise. Percentage agreement and prevalence of lesions were calculated, as intrareader reliability was assessed by weighted kappa and interreader reliability by Light's kappa. Results: The three-grade semiquantitative scoring system demonstrated excellent intrareader reliability (kappa: 0.87 and 0.83) in the web-based exercise and the patient exercise, respectively. Interreader reliability was good in the web-based exercise (kappa: 0.64) and moderate (kappa: 0.48) in the patient exercise. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that ultrasound is a reliable tool for evaluating cartilage changes in the MCP joints of patients with RA and supports further development of a new reliable semiquantitative ultrasound scoring system for evaluating cartilage involvement in RA.

Objective. To document the current state of musculoskeletal US (MSUS) training and extent of implementation among rheumatologists in the member countries of EULAR. Methods. An English-language questionnaire, divided into five sections (demographics, clinical use of MSUS, overall MSUS training for rheumatologists, MSUS education in the rheumatology training curriculum and education in MSUS offered by the national rheumatology society) was sent by e-mail to three different groups: (i) all national rheumatology societies of EULAR; (ii) all national societies of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology; and (iii) 19 senior rheumatologists involved in MSUS training from 14 European countries. Results. Thirty-one (70.5%) out of 44 countries responded to the questionnaire (59.1% of national rheumatology societies, 34.5% of the national US societies and 100% of expert ultrasonographers). Rheumatology was listed among medical specialities that mainly perform MSUS in 20 (64.5%) countries; however, in most [19 (63.3%)] countries <10% of rheumatologists routinely perform MSUS in clinical practice. Training varies widely from country to country, with low rates of competency assessment. MSUS education is part of the rheumatology training curriculum in over half the surveyed countries, being compulsory in 7 (22.6%) countries and optional in 11 (35.5%). Conclusions. This study confirms the high uptake of MSUS across Europe. The reported variation in training and practice between countries suggests a need for standardization in areas including training guidelines

Objectives. To document the practice and training opportunities of US-guided arthrocentesis and joint injection (UGAJ) among rheumatologists in the member countries of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). Methods. An English-language questionnaire, containing questions on demographics, clinical and practical aspects of UGAJ, training options in UGAJ for rheumatologists, UGAJ education in the rheumatology training curriculum and other structured education programmes in UGAJ was sent to three different groups: (i) all national rheumatology societies of EULAR; (ii) all national societies of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB); and (iii) 22 senior rheumatologists involved in EULAR musculoskeletal US training from 14 European countries, who were also asked to circulate the questionnaire among relevant colleagues. Results. Thirty-three (75%) of 44 countries responded to the questionnaire (61.3% of national rheumatology societies, 25% of the national US societies and 100% of expert ultrasonographers). In the majority of countries (85%) <10% of rheumatologists routinely perform UGAJ in clinical practice, while the remaining countries (15%) reported a rate of 10-50%. The percentage of rheumatologists receiving training in UGAJ was <10% in the majority (72.7%) of countries. Conclusion. The study highlights the relatively low prevalence of UGAJ as compared with the high (>80%) rate of rheumatologists performing conventional joint injection in most of the surveyed countries. The reported variations in practice and the lack of available structured training programmes for trainees in most countries indicates the need for standardization in areas including training guidelines