Klaus Machold

Guidelines for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology

Within the past decade, musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) has become an established imaging technique for the diagnosis and follow up of patients with rheumatic diseases.1-5 This has been made possible through technological improvements, resulting in faster computers and higher frequency transducers. US is most commonly used in the assessment of soft tissue disease or detection of fluid collection and can also be used to visualise other structures, such as cartilage and bone surfaces.6 7 Owing to the better axial and lateral resolution of US, even minute bone surface abnormalities may be depicted. Thus destructive and/or reparative/hypertrophic changes on the bone surface may be seen before they are apparent on plain x rays or even magnetic resonance imaging.8 However, US wave frequencies cannot penetrate into bone, therefore imaging of intra-articular disease is usually not possible. The “real time” capability of US allows dynamic assessment of joint and tendon movements, which can often aid the detection of structural abnormalities. Advantages of US include its non-invasiveness, portability, relative inexpensiveness, lack of ionising radiation, and its ability to be repeated as often as necessary, making it particularly useful for the monitoring of treatment. US can also be used for guidance of aspiration, biopsy, and injection treatment.9 Most musculoskeletal work is performed using “grey scale”, which means images are produced in a black and white format; each white dot in the image represents a reflected sound wave. Sound waves travel in a similar way to light waves and therefore the denser a material is—for example, bone cortex, the more reflective it is and the whiter it appears on the screen. Water is the least reflective body material and therefore appears as black as the sound waves travel straight through it. Newer US techniques, which are currently being evaluated, include colour and power …

Acute phase reactants add little to composite disease activity indices for rheumatoid arthritis: validation of a clinical activity score

IntroductionFrequent assessments of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity allow timely adaptation of therapy, which is essential in preventing disease progression. However, values of acute phase reactants (APRs) are needed to calculate current composite activity indices, such as the Disease Activity Score (DAS)28, the DAS28-CRP (i.e. the DAS28 using C-reactive protein instead of erythrocyte sedimentation rate) and the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI). We hypothesized that APRs make limited contribution to the SDAI, and that an SDAI-modification eliminating APRs – termed the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI; i.e. the sum of tender and swollen joint counts [28 joints] and patient and physician global assessments [in cm]) – would have comparable validity in clinical cohorts.MethodData sources comprised an observational cohort of 767 RA patients (average disease duration 8.1 ± 10.6 years), and an independent inception cohort of 106 patients (disease duration 11.5 ± 12.5 weeks) who were followed prospectively.ResultsOur clinically based hypothesis was statistically supported: APRs accounted only for 15% of the DAS28, and for 5% of the SDAI and the DAS28-CRP. In both cohorts the CDAI correlated strongly with DAS28 (R = 0.89–0.90) and comparably to the correlation of SDAI with DAS28 (R = 0.90–0.91). In additional analyses, the CDAI when compared to the SDAI and the DAS28 agreed with a weighted kappa of 0.70 and 0.79, respectively, and comparably to the agreement between DAS28 and DAS28-CRP. All three scores correlated similarly with Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores (R = 0.45–0.47). The average changes in all scores were greater in patients with better American College of Rheumatology response (P < 0.0001, analysis of variance; discriminant validity). All scores exhibited similar correlations with radiological progression (construct validity) over 3 years (R = 0.54–0.58; P < 0.0001).ConclusionAPRs add little information on top (and independent) of the combination of clinical variables included in the SDAI. A purely clinical score is a valid measure of disease activity and will have its greatest merits in clinical practice rather than research, where APRs are usually always available. The CDAI may facilitate immediate and consistent treatment decisions and help to improve patient outcomes in the longer term.

Autoantibody profiling as early diagnostic and prognostic tool for rheumatoid arthritis

Background: Early treatment prevents progression of joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but diagnosis in early disease is impeded by lack of appropriate diagnostic criteria. Objective: To study the value of rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide autoantibodies (anti-CCP), and anti-RA33 autoantibodies for diagnosis of RA and prediction of outcome in patients with very early arthritis. Methods: The prospective follow up inception cohort included 200 patients with very early (<3 months) inflammatory joint disease. Autoantibodies were measured at baseline and analysed in a tree based model which aimed at determining the added diagnostic value of testing for anti-CCP and anti-RA33 as compared with RF alone. Results: RA was diagnosed in 102 patients, while 98 developed other inflammatory arthropathies. Receiver operator curve analysis showed an optimum cut off level for RF at 50 U/ml, above which anti-CCP and anti-RA33 had no additional diagnostic value. Remarkably, RF ⩾50 U/ml and anti-CCP showed similar sensitivity and high specificity for RA, but overlapped considerably. Anti-RA33 was less specific and did not correlate with RF or anti-CCP. Among patients with RA, 72% showed at least one of these three autoantibodies, compared with 15% of non-RA patients. RF ⩾50 U/ml and anti-CCP were predictors of erosive disease, whereas anti-RA33 was associated with mild disease. Conclusions: Stepwise autoantibody testing in early inflammatory joint disease, starting with RF, followed by anti-CCP (in patients with RF <50 U/ml), and finally anti-RA33, should be used as a sensitive and effective strategy for distinguishing patients with RA at high risk for poor outcome.

Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation vs Intravenous Pulse Cyclophosphamide in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE High-dose immunosuppressive therapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) have shown efficacy in systemic sclerosis in phase 1 and small phase 2 trials. OBJECTIVE To compare efficacy and safety of HSCT vs 12 successive monthly intravenous pulses of cyclophosphamide. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation International Scleroderma (ASTIS) trial, a phase 3, multicenter, randomized (1:1), open-label, parallel-group, clinical trial conducted in 10 countries at 29 centers with access to a European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation-registered transplant facility. From March 2001 to October 2009, 156 patients with early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis were recruited and followed up until October 31, 2013. INTERVENTIONS HSCT vs intravenous pulse cyclophosphamide. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was event-free survival, defined as time from randomization until the occurrence of death or persistent major organ failure. RESULTS A total of 156 patients were randomly assigned to receive HSCT (n = 79) or cyclophosphamide (n = 77). During a median follow-up of 5.8 years, 53 events occurred: 22 in the HSCT group (19 deaths and 3 irreversible organ failures) and 31 in the control group (23 deaths and 8 irreversible organ failures). During the first year, there were more events in the HSCT group (13 events [16.5%], including 8 treatment-related deaths) than in the control group (8 events [10.4%], with no treatment-related deaths). At 2 years, 14 events (17.7%) had occurred cumulatively in the HSCT group vs 14 events (18.2%) in the control group; at 4 years, 15 events (19%) had occurred cumulatively in the HSCT group vs 20 events (26%) in the control group. Time-varying hazard ratios (modeled with treatment × time interaction) for event-free survival were 0.35 (95% CI, 0.16-0.74) at 2 years and 0.34 (95% CI, 0.16-0.74) at 4 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis, HSCT was associated with increased treatment-related mortality in the first year after treatment. However, HCST conferred a significant long-term event-free survival benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN54371254.

Interobserver reliability of rheumatologists performing musculoskeletal ultrasonography: results from a EULAR “Train the trainers” course

Objective: To evaluate the interobserver reliability among 14 experts in musculoskeletal ultrasonography (US) and to determine the overall agreement about the US results compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which served as the imaging “gold standard”. Methods: The clinically dominant joint regions (shoulder, knee, ankle/toe, wrist/finger) of four patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were ultrasonographically examined by 14 experts. US results were compared with MRI. Overall agreements, sensitivities, specificities, and interobserver reliabilities were assessed. Results: Taking an agreement in US examination of 10 out of 14 experts into account, the overall κ for all examined joints was 0.76. Calculations for each joint region showed high κ values for the knee (1), moderate values for the shoulder (0.76) and hand/finger (0.59), and low agreement for ankle/toe joints (0.28). κ Values for bone lesions, bursitis, and tendon tears were high (κ = 1). Relatively good agreement for most US findings, compared with MRI, was found for the shoulder (overall agreement 81%, sensitivity 76%, specificity 89%) and knee joint (overall agreement 88%, sensitivity 91%, specificity 88%). Sensitivities were lower for wrist/finger (overall agreement 73%, sensitivity 66%, specificity 88%) and ankle/toe joints (overall agreement 82%, sensitivity 61%, specificity 92%). Conclusion: Interobserver reliabilities, sensitivities, and specificities in comparison with MRI were moderate to good. Further standardisation of US scanning techniques and definitions of different pathological US lesions are necessary to increase the interobserver agreement in musculoskeletal US.

EULAR recommendations for terminology and research in individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis: report from the Study Group for Risk Factors for Rheumatoid Arthritis

The Study Group for Risk Factors for Rheumatoid Arthritis was established by the EULAR Standing Committee on Investigative Rheumatology to facilitate research into the preclinical and earliest clinically apparent phases of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This report describes the recommendation for terminology to be used to define specific subgroups during different phases of disease, and defines the priorities for research in this area. Terminology was discussed by way of a three-stage structured process: A provisional list of descriptors for each of the possible phases preceding the diagnosis of RA were circulated to members of the study group for review and feedback. Anonymised comments from the members on this list were fed back to participants before a 2-day meeting. 18 participants met to discuss these data, agree terminologies and prioritise important research questions. The study group recommended that, in prospective studies, individuals without RA are described as having: genetic risk factors for RA; environmental risk factors for RA; systemic autoimmunity associated with RA; symptoms without clinical arthritis; unclassified arthritis; which may be used in a combinatorial manner. It was recommended that the prefix ‘pre-RA with:’ could be used before any/any combination of the five points above but only to describe retrospectively a phase that an individual had progressed through once it was known that they have developed RA. An approach to dating disease onset was recommended. In addition, important areas for research were proposed, including research of other tissues in which an adaptive immune response may be initiated, and the identification of additional risk factors and biomarkers for the development of RA, its progression and the development of extra-articular features. These recommendations provide guidance on approaches to describe phases before the development of RA that will facilitate communication between researchers and comparisons between studies. A number of research questions have been defined, requiring new cohorts to be established and new techniques to be developed to image and collect material from different sites.

Proposal for a new nomenclature of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

In light of the recent emergence of new therapeutics for rheumatoid arthritis, such as kinase inhibitors and biosimilars, a new nomenclature for disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), which are currently often classified as synthetic (or chemical) DMARDs (sDMARDS) and biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), may be needed. We propose to divide the latter into biological original and biosimilar DMARDs (boDMARDs and bsDMARDs, respectively, such as abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab or tocilizumab, but also emerging ones like clazakizumab, ixekizumab, sarilumab, secukinumab or sirukumab) and the former into conventional synthetic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs and tsDMARDs, respectively). tsDMARDs would then constitute only those that were specifically developed to target a particular molecular structure (such as tofacitinib, fostamatinib, baricitinib or apremilast, or agents not focused primarily on rheumatic diseases, such as imatinib or ibrutinib), while csDMARDs would comprise the traditional drugs (such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, gold salts and others). The proposed nomenclature may provide means to group and distinguish the different types of DMARDs in clinical studies and review articles.

The Stop Arthritis Very Early (SAVE) trial, an international multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on glucocorticoids in very early arthritis

Background Glucocorticoids (GCs) are often used as early arthritis treatment and it has been suggested that they induce remission or at least delay the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the need to start disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Objective To test the effect of GCs on patients with very early arthritis (symptom duration of <16 weeks) in a randomised controlled trial. Methods Patients received a single intramuscular injection of 120 mg methylprednisolone or placebo (PL) and were followed up for 52 weeks. Primary end point was drug-free clinical remission, both at weeks 12 and 52. Among secondary outcomes were fulfilment of remission criteria at weeks 2, 12 or 52, time course of ‘core set variables’ and proportion of patients starting DMARDs. Results 17.0% of all analysed subjects (65/383) achieved persistent remission: 17.8% (33/185) of the PL group, 16.2% (32/198) of the patients receiving methylprednisolone (OR=1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.92, p=0.6847). Analyses of secondary end points showed significant clinical benefits of the GC only at week 2. These differences subsequently disappeared. DMARDs were started in 162 patients: 50.3% methylprednisolone and 56.7% PL patients had to start DMARD treatment (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22, p=0.30). Significantly more patients with polyarthritis than with oligoarthritis received DMARDs (OR=2.84, 95% CI 1.75 to 4.60, p<0.0001). Conclusions Neither remission nor development of RA is delayed by GC treatment. Remission is rare in the first year of very early arthritis, occurring in <20% of the patients. Also, the need to start DMARDs was not influenced by GC treatment.

I Have Mastered the Challenge of Living With a Chronic Disease: Life Stories of People With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Our aim with this study was to explore the narrative life story of individuals diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. An open qualitative approach, namely narrative biographic methodology, was applied to include the life context of the participants and to deliberately exclude predefinitions of concepts. Ten people with rheumatoid arthritis who retired early because of the disease participated and were interviewed three times according to a narrative biographic interview style. The biographical data and the interview texts were analyzed both individually and in comparison to each other. Some participants regarded rheumatoid arthritis as a challenge for mastery in their lives, whereas others adapted to the disease and “made the best out of a bad situation.” Especially in countries where the medical model predominates in health care, our findings can be used to broaden the current view that some health professionals have toward patients, and stress the importance of patients being self-responsible.

Delays in assessment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: variations across Europe

Objective The first 3 months after symptom onset represent an important therapeutic window for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study investigates the extent and causes of delay in assessment of patients with RA in eight European countries. Method Data on the following levels of delay were collected from 10 centres (Berlin, Birmingham, Heraklion, Lund, Prague, Stockholm, Umeå, Vienna, Warsaw and Zurich): (1) from onset of RA symptoms to request to see healthcare professional (HCP); (2) from request to see HCP to assessment by that HCP; (3) from initial assessment by HCP to referral to rheumatologist; and (4) from referral to rheumatologist to assessment by that rheumatologist. Results Data were collected from 482 patients with RA. The median delay across the 10 centres from symptom onset to assessment by the rheumatologist was 24 weeks, with the percentage of patients seen within 12 weeks of symptom onset ranging from 8% to 42%. There were important differences in the levels underlying the total delays at individual centres. Conclusions This research highlights the contribution of patients, professionals and health systems to treatment delay for patients with RA in Europe. Although some centres have strengths in minimising certain types of delay, interventions are required in all centres to ensure timely treatment for patients.