Philip Platt

A randomized, double-blind, controlled study of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection into the joint of patients with inflammatory arthritis.

OBJECTIVE Most corticosteroid injections into the joint are guided by the clinical examination (CE), but up to 70% are inaccurately placed, which may contribute to an inadequate response. The aim of this study was to investigate whether ultrasound (US) guidance improves the accuracy and clinical outcome of joint injections as compared with CE guidance in patients with inflammatory arthritis. METHODS A total of 184 patients with inflammatory arthritis and an inflamed joint (shoulder, elbow, wrist, knee, or ankle) were randomized to receive either US-guided or CE-guided corticosteroid injections. Visual analog scales (VAS) for assessment of function, pain, and stiffness of the target joint, a modified Health Assessment Questionnaire, and the EuroQol 5-domain questionnaire were obtained at baseline and at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postinjection. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level were measured at baseline and 2 weeks. Contrast injected with the steroid was used to assess the accuracy of the joint injection. RESULTS One-third of CE-guided injections were inaccurate. US-guided injections performed by a trainee rheumatologist were more accurate than the CE-guided injections performed by more senior rheumatologists (83% versus 66%; P = 0.010). There was no significant difference in clinical outcome between the group receiving US-guided injections and the group receiving CE-guided injections. Accurate injections led to greater improvement in joint function, as determined by VAS scores, at 6 weeks, as compared with inaccurate injections (30.6 mm versus 21.2 mm; P = 0.030). Clinicians who used US guidance reliably assessed the accuracy of joint injection (P < 0.001), whereas those who used CE guidance did not (P = 0.29). CONCLUSION US guidance significantly improves the accuracy of joint injection, allowing a trainee to rapidly achieve higher accuracy than more experienced rheumatologists. US guidance did not improve the short-term outcome of joint injection.

Access to training in musculoskeletal ultrasound: a survey of UK rheumatology trainees

SIR, We read with interest the article by Taggart et al. [1, 2] and the accompanying editorial regarding a novel formal training programme in musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS). We agree that a significant impediment to training is limited access to ongoing experience despite the popularity of courses run by the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and other organizations. In order to examine this in more detail we undertook a survey of UK rheumatology trainees. An invitation to complete a web-based questionnaire was sent to all trainees whose e-mail addresses were on the BSR trainee group mailing list (163 in total). All responses were anonymous: trainees were e-mailed in August 2008 with a reminder e-mail sent to non-responders. There were 93 respondents of whom 80 were still in training and included in the analysis. Eight-two per cent were specialist registrars (SpRs) or specialty training trainees and 18% were in research posts. Fifty-five per cent of the respondents had no experience of MSUS with only 9% having what they would describe as ‘moderate’ or ‘extensive’ experience. Sixteen per cent performed MSUS regularly (half of whom were in research posts) although 47% reported that MSUS was used routinely in their department. Only 25% thought that training in MSUS was available on their rotation and 19% did not know. By the time they had completed their training, 17.5% of the respondents expected to be competent in MSUS. Twenty-six per cent had attended an MSUS course (most frequently one of the BSR courses) and a further 64% said that they intended to or may do so. Fifty-eight per cent of those who had tried to do so had experienced difficulty in obtaining a place on a course. Fifty-two per cent reported that they had had difficulty in obtaining MSUS experience in their clinical posts. Several respondents commented on the difficulty in accessing training due to pressure on radiology departments to train their own SpRs; some also commented on the perceived scepticism of radiologists that training rheumatologists was achievable. The majority of respondents (94%) thought that competency in MSUS would be advantageous to their clinical practice, and 87% thought that formal MSUS training should be part of the training programme. These results underline the popularity of formal courses in MSUS and yet indicate limitations in access to ongoing training and experience, which is vital to acquisition of technical expertise: guidelines published by the Royal College of Radiologists recommend weekly scanning sessions for 3–6 months consisting of a minimum 250 scans [3]. The finding that only a minority of trainees thought that training was available on their rotation, and that a further group did not know what the opportunities were, indicates a need for such training opportunities to be clearly defined in the absence of a formal training programme. Ideally, this information should be available to trainees before embarking on courses that may otherwise not be backed up by practical experience. As the editorial [2] suggests, it is unlikely that we will all become competent ultrasonographers, but those who aspire to do so should have clear and predictable access to training.

A Pragmatic Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Screening Protocol Does Not Add to a Predictive Algorithm for Persistent Inflammatory Arthritis in a UK Early Arthritis Clinic

Background/Purpose: MicroRNAs (miRs) are a novel class of posttranscriptional regulators. A single miR can have profound effects on cell activation due to its ability to modulate multiple pathways at once. We have previously shown that miR-155 is upregulated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) synovial macrophages and promotes the development of autoimmunity and joint inflammation. Pre-clinical arthritis may be associated with lung changes e.g. bronchial wall thickening, thus the aim of this study was to investigate the contribution of miR-155 regulated pathways to lung homeostasis. Methods: Normal human lung tissue was tested by in situ hybridisation with miR-155 and control probes. To model the fibrotic response, WT and miR-155 / mice were given bleomycin (0.06 unit/mouse) intranasally. Intervention included intraperitoneal injections of the Liver X Receptor (LXR) agonist (GW3965 daily; 40 mg/kg). End-points included bronchial lavage (BAL) cytology, lung tissue histology, evaluation of the expression of inflammatory and fibrotic genes by qPCR and concentrations of soluble mediators in serum and BAL fluid by multiplex assays. The validation of miR-155 binding to LXR, and the LXR response element in collagen gene promoters were performed with reporter assays. Results: In situ hybridisation showed an abundant expression of miR-155 in the normal human lung suggesting that this miR may contribute to normal lung homeostasis. miR-155 / mice developed more severe bleomycininduced lung fibrosis compared to WT mice, as seen by increased collagen 1a/3a mRNA expression and protein deposition in the lungs, as well as accumulation of macrophages and lymphocytes in BAL. Gene expression analysis of lung extracts revealed an increase in the M2 pro-fibrotic macrophage markers Arginase 2, IL-13R and Ym1. In addition, the levels of pro-fibrotic cytokines such as VEGF and bFGF were significantly higher in BAL and serum of miR-155 / mice. Primary lung fibroblast lines derived from miR-155 / mice showed higher proliferation rates and motility compared to WT cells in wound healing assays. Computational analysis followed by functional luciferase assays revealed that the transcription activator LXR alpha is a direct target of miR-155 in the lungs. Expression of LXR alpha was significantly upregulated in the lungs of naive miR-155 / mice and was further increased in mice given bleomycin compared to similarly treated WT controls. Injection of the LXR agonist to WT mice increased LXR expression and mirrored the same phenotypic response to bleomycin as the miR-155 deficient mice; shown by increased collagen deposition and M2 macrophage and fibroblast activation. Promoter analysis revealed that LXRs could directly induce collagen production by binding to col1a and col3a promoters. / Conclusion: miR-155 appears important for lung homeostasis, likely by fine tuning levels of LXR thereby protecting from excessive remodelling. Given this and the emerging contribution of miR-155 to development of autoimmunity, this miR may act as a master-switch determining the duration of inflammation and the initiation of remodelling, as well as the balance between the immune and auto-immune responses.Background/Purpose: High mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) is a non-histone DNA binding protein that is passively released by dying cells or actively secreted by immunocompetent cells and the receptor for advanced glycation end-products (RAGE) is one of its receptors. Higher levels of HMGB1 have been found in patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) with active disease whereas higher HMGB1 and lower soluble (sRAGE) levels have been found in patients with acute atherosclerotic events suggesting sRAGE acts as a decoy receptor. This study aims to evaluate HMGB1 levels in relation to subclinical carotid atherosclerosis in GPA, and the impact of therapy on HMGB1 levels. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed on 23 GPA patients during a quiescent phase of the disease in comparison to 20 matched controls. All study participants underwent carotid ultrasound to assess atherosclerotic plaques and intima-media thickness (IMT) and were tested for traditional risk factors for atherosclerosis, serum HMGB1 levels (ELISA-Shino Test, Kanagawa, Japan), and sRAGE levels (ELISA RD P = 0.978), HDLcholesterol (1.41 ± 0.37 vs. 1.51±0.33 mmol/L; P = 0.359), LDLcholesterol (3.01±0.79 vs. 3.29±0.82 mmol/L; P = 0.267), and a similar frequency of smoking (8.7% vs. 5.0%; P = 0.635), family history of premature coronary artery disease (CAD) (39.1% vs. 40.0%; P = 0.954), and obesity (4.3% vs. 10.0%; P = 0.446). Hypertension was only found in GPA patients (39.1% vs. 0.0%; P = 0.002) while no study participants had diabetes. Overt cardiovascular disease was found only in 13.0% of GPA patients. Statins were prescribed for 21.7% of GPA patients and 5.0% of controls (P = 0.127). Among GPA patients, prednisolone was being used by 34.8% with a median daily dose of 5.0mg (2.5-15.0) and azathioprine by 34.8%. Only two GPA patients used statins and prednisolone concomitantly. Carotid plaques were found in 30.4% of GPA patients and in 15.0% of controls (P = 0.203) and the overall IMT was similar in GPA patients and in controls (0.833±0.256 vs. 0.765±0.133mm; P = 0.861). Median serum HMGB1 levels were similar between GPA patients and controls [2.13ng/mL (1.11-7.22) vs. 2.42ng/mL (0.38-6.75); P = 0.827] as well as mean sRAGE levels (1256.1±559.6 vs. 1483.3±399.8pg/mL; P = 0.155). No correlations were found between HMGB1 and sRAGE ( = 0.068; P = 0.681) and between HMGB1 and maximum IMT in carotid arteries ( = -0.067; P = 0.720). GPA patients on prednisolone (1.77±0.76 vs. 3.53±2.06ng/ mL; P = 0.017) and statins (1.39±0.28 vs. 3.34±1.94ng/mL; P = 0.001) presented significantly lower serum HMGB1 levels whereas no difference in mean HMGB1 levels was found regarding azathioprine use (2.89±2.28 vs. 2.93±1.75; P = 0.970). Conclusion: No association was found between subclinical atherosclerosis in carotid arteries and HMGB1 levels in GPA patients. Furthermore, the use of either prednisone or statins was associated with lower HMGB1 levels in GPA patients. These findings suggest that the anti-inflammatory properties of statins include effects on serum HMGB1 levels in GPA.