Intramuscular versus ultrasound-guided intratenosynovial glucocorticoid injection for tenosynovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, controlled study

2016 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 666-672 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Ammitzbøll-Danielsen ◽  
Mikkel Østergaard ◽  
Viktoria Fana ◽  
Daniel Glinatsi ◽  
Uffe Møller Døhn ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of intramuscular versus ultrasound (US)-guided intratenosynovial glucocorticoid injection in providing disease control after 2, 4 and 12 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis(RA) with tenosynovitis.MethodsFifty patients with RA and tenosynovitis were randomised into two double-blind groups: (A) ‘intramuscular group’, receiving intramuscular injection of betamethasone and US-guided intratenosynovial isotonic saline injection and (B) ‘intratenosynovial group’ receiving saline intramuscularly and US-guided intratenosynovial betamethasone injection. All patients were in stable disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug treatment prior to and during the study. Patients were excluded, and considered non-responders, if any treatments were altered during the follow-up period. ‘US tenosynovitis remission’, defined as US tenosynovitis grey-scale score ≤1 and colour Doppler score=0, was assessed at week 4 (primary outcome), and weeks 2 and 12, using non-responder imputation for missing data.ResultsUS tenosynovitis remission at week 4 was achieved in 25% (6/24) in the ‘intramuscular group’ versus 64% (16/25) in the ‘intratenosynovial group’, that is, a difference of −39 percentage point (pp) (CI −65pp to −13pp), Fisher exact test p=0.001. Corresponding values for the ‘intramuscular group’ versus the ‘intratenosynovial group’ at 2 and 12 weeks were 21% (5/24) versus 48% (13/25), that is, a difference of −27pp (CI −53pp to −2pp), p=0.072 and 8% (2/24) versus 44% (11/25), that is, difference of −36pp (−58pp to −13pp), p=0.003. Most US, clinical and patient-reported scores improved more in the ‘intratenosynovial group’ at all follow-up visits.ConclusionsIn this randomised double-blind clinical trial, patients with RA and tenosynovitis responded significantly better to US-guided intratenosynovial glucocorticoid injection than to intramuscular glucocorticoid injection, both at 4 and 12 weeks follow-up.Trial registration numberEudraCT nr: 2013-003486-34.

Author(s):  
Kyoung-Ho Seo ◽  
Joonyoung Jang ◽  
Eun Gyeong Jang ◽  
Yulhyun Park ◽  
So Young Lee ◽  
...  

Abstract Background To date, conventional swallowing therapies and 2-channel neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) are standard treatments for dysphagia. The precise mechanism of 2-channel NMES treatment has not been determined, and there are controversies regarding the efficacy of this therapy. The sequential 4-channel NMES was recently developed and its action is based on the normal contractile sequence of swallowing-related muscles. Objective To evaluate and compare the rehabilitative effectiveness of the sequential 4-channel NMES with that of conventional 2-channel NMES. Methods In this prospective randomized case–control study, 26 subjects with dysphagia were enrolled. All participants received 2- or 4-channel NMES for 2–3 weeks (minimal session: 7 times, treatment duration: 300–800 min). Twelve subjects in the 4-channel NMES group and eleven subjects in the 2-channel NMES group completed the intervention. Initial and follow-up evaluations were performed using the videofluoroscopic dysphagia scale (VDS), the penetration-aspiration scale (PAS), the MD Anderson dysphagia inventory (MDADI), the functional oral intake scale (FOIS), and the Likert scale. Results The sequential 4-channel NMES group experienced significant improvement in their VDS (oral, pharyngeal, and total), PAS, FOIS, and MDADI (emotional, functional, and physical subsets) scores, based on their pretreatment data. VDS (oral, pharyngeal, and total) and MDADI (emotional and physical subsets) scores, but not PAS and FOIS scores, significantly improved in the 2-channel NMES group posttreatment. When the two groups were directly compared, the 4-channel NMES group showed significant improvement in oral and total VDS scores. Conclusions The sequential 4-channel NMES, through its activation of the suprahyoid and thyrohyoid muscles, and other infrahyoid muscles mimicking physiological activation, may be a new effective treatment for dysphagia. Trial registration: clinicaltrial.gov, registration number: NCT03670498, registered 13 September 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03670498?term=NCT03670498&draw=2&rank=1.


2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (7) ◽  
pp. 1268-1277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piotr Wiland ◽  
Jean Dudler ◽  
Douglas Veale ◽  
Hasan Tahir ◽  
Ron Pedersen ◽  
...  

Objective.An analysis of a clinical trial to assess the effects of treatment reduction and withdrawal on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) low disease activity (LDA) or remission with etanercept (ETN) plus methotrexate (MTX) therapy.Methods.During treatment induction, patients received open-label ETN 50 mg weekly plus MTX for 52 weeks. In the reduced-treatment phase, patients with DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) ≤ 3.2 at Week 39 and DAS28-ESR < 2.6 at Week 52 in the open-label phase were randomized to double-blind treatment with ETN 25 mg plus MTX, MTX, or placebo (PBO) for 39 weeks (weeks 0–39). In the third phase, patients who achieved DAS28 remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.6) or LDA (2.6 ≤ DAS28-ESR ≤ 3.2) at Week 39 in the double-blind phase had all treatment withdrawn and were observed for an additional 26 weeks (weeks 39–65).Results.Of the 306 patients enrolled, 193 were randomized in the double-blind phase and 131 participated in the treatment-withdrawal phase. After reduction or withdrawal of ETN 50 mg/MTX, patients reduced to ETN 25 mg/MTX experienced slight, nonsignificant declines in the majority of PRO measures, whereas switching to PBO or MTX alone caused significant declines. Presenteeism and activity impairment scores were significantly better in the ETN reduced-dose group versus MTX monotherapy and PBO at Week 39 (p ≤ 0.05).Conclusion.In patients with early RA who achieved remission while receiving full-dose ETN/MTX, continuing combination therapy at a lower dose did not cause a significant worsening of PRO response, but switching to MTX alone or PBO did.ClinicalTrials.govidentifier:NCT00913458.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 250-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia J. Wright ◽  
Shelley W. Linens

Objective:To track the patient-reported efficacy of a 4-wk intervention (wobble board [WB] or resistance tubing [RT]) in decreasing symptoms of chronic ankle instability (CAI) at 6 mo postintervention (6PI) as compared with immediately postintervention (IPI).Design:Randomized controlled trial.Participants:Fourteen of 21 participants (66.7%) responded to an electronic 6-m follow-up questionnaire (age 19.6 ± 0.9 y, height 1.63 ± 0.18 m, weight 70.5 ± 16.3 kg; 2 male, 12 female; 5 WB, 9 RT). All participants met CAI criteria at enrollment, including a history of ankle sprain and recurrent episodes of giving way.Interventions:Participants completed either RT or WB protocols, both 12 sessions over 4 wk of progressive exercise. WB sessions consisted of five 40-s sets of clockwise and counterclockwise rotations. RT sessions consisted of 30 contractions against resistance tubing in each of 4 ankle directions.Main Outcome Measurements:Patient-reported symptoms of “giving way” preintervention and at 6PI, global rating of change (GRC) frequencies at IPI and 6PI, and resprains at 6PI were reported descriptively. Changes in global rating of function (GRF) and giving way were compared using Wilcoxon tests, while GRC was compared with Fisher exact test.Results:All participants reported giving way preintervention, only 57.1% reported giving way at 6PI. Resprains occurred in 21.4% of participants. Giving-way frequency (P = .017), but not GRF or GRC (P > .05), was significantly different at IPI vs 6PI.Conclusions:Simple 4-wk interventions maintained some but not all improvements at 6PI. At least 42.9% of participants would no longer meet the current study’s CAI inclusion criteria due to a reduction in giving way.


Author(s):  
Shannon Humphrey ◽  
Joel L Cohen ◽  
Ashish C Bhatia ◽  
Lawrence J Green ◽  
Jeremy B Green ◽  
...  

Abstract Background ATX-101 (deoxycholic acid) significantly reduced submental fat (SMF) severity in two 24-week phase 3 studies (REFINE-1 and REFINE-2). Objectives To evaluate durability of effect and long-term safety of ATX-101. Methods REFINE study patients with maintenance of ≥1-grade improvement on the Clinician-Reported SMF Rating Scale (CR-1 responders) 12 weeks after last REFINE treatment were eligible for enrollment in this multicenter, double-blind, nontreatment, long-term, follow-up study (NCT02163902). Primary endpoint was CR-1 response at years 1, 2, and 3. Patient-reported satisfaction, psychological impact, and adverse events were monitored. Results 224 patients (ATX-101, n=113; placebo, n=111) were enrolled. Maintenance of CR-1 response was significantly better in the ATX-101 group versus placebo at year 1 (86.4%, 56.8%; P&lt;.001), year 2 (90.6%, 73.8%; P=.014), and year 3 (82.4%, 65.0%; P=.03). Most (74%) ATX-101‒treated patients satisfied at 12 weeks remained satisfied at year 3. Significant reductions from baseline in psychological impact scores were sustained through year 3 (P&lt;.001). No new treatment-related adverse events were reported. Conclusions Improvements in submental contour achieved with ATX-101 are maintained for 3 years in most patients. No new safety signals emerged.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1463.2-1464
Author(s):  
S. Bayat ◽  
K. Tascilar ◽  
V. Kaufmann ◽  
A. Kleyer ◽  
D. Simon ◽  
...  

Background:Recent developments of targeted treatments such as targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) increase the chances of a sustained low disease activity (LDA) or remission state for patients suffering rheumatoid arthritis (RA). tsDMARDs such as baricitinib, an oral inhibitor of the Janus Kinases (JAK1/JAK2) was recently approved for the treatment of RA with an inadequate response to conventional (cDMARD) and biological (bDMARD) therapy. (1, 2).Objectives:Aim of this study is to analyze the effect of baricitinb on disease activity (DAS28, LDA) in patients with RA in real life, to analyze drug persistance and associate these effects with various baseline characteristics.Methods:All RA patients were seen in our outpatient clinic. If a patient was switched to a baricitinib due to medical reasons, these patients were included in our prospective, observational study which started in April 2017. Clinical scores (SJC/TJC 76/78), composite scores (DAS28), PROs (HAQ-DI; RAID; FACIT), safety parameters (not reported in this abstract) as well as laboratory biomarkers were collected at each visit every three months. Linear mixed effects models for repeated measurements were used to analyze the time course of disease activity, patient reported outcomes and laboratory results. We estimated the probabilities of continued baricitinib treatment and the probabilities of LDA and remission by DAS-28 as well as Boolean remission up to one year using survival analysis and explored their association with disease characteristics using multivariable Cox regression. All patients gave informed consent. The study is approved by the local ethics.Results:95 patients were included and 85 analyzed with available follow-up data until November 2019. Demographics are shown in table 1. Mean follow-up duration after starting baricitinib was 49.3 (28.9) weeks. 51 patients (60%) were on monotherapy. Baricitinib survival (95%CI) was 82% (73% to 91%) at one year. Cumulative number (%probability, 95%CI) of patients that attained DAS-28 LDA at least once up to one year was 67 (92%, 80% to 97%) and the number of patients attaining DAS-28 and Boolean remission were 31 (50%, 34% to 61%) and 12(20%, 9% to 30%) respectively. Median time to DAS-28 LDA was 16 weeks (Figure 1). Cox regression analyses did not show any sufficiently precise association of remission or LDA with age, gender, seropositivity, disease duration, concomitant DMARD use and number of previous bDMARDs. Increasing number of previous bDMARDs was associated with poor baricitinib survival (HR=1.5, 95%CI 1.1 to 2.2) while this association was not robust to adjustment for baseline disease activity. Favorable changes were observed in tender and swollen joint counts, pain-VAS, patient and physician disease assessment scores, RAID, FACIT and the acute phase response.Conclusion:In this prospective observational study, we observed high rates of LDA and DAS-28 remission and significant improvements in disease activity and patient reported outcome measurements over time.References:[1]Keystone EC, Taylor PC, Drescher E, Schlichting DE, Beattie SD, Berclaz PY, et al. Safety and efficacy of baricitinib at 24 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to methotrexate. Annals of the rheumatic diseases. 2015 Feb;74(2):333-40.[2]Genovese MC, Kremer J, Zamani O, Ludivico C, Krogulec M, Xie L, et al. Baricitinib in Patients with Refractory Rheumatoid Arthritis. The New England journal of medicine. 2016 Mar 31;374(13):1243-52.Figure 1.Cumulative probability of low disease activity or remission under treatment with baricitinib.Disclosure of Interests:Sara Bayat Speakers bureau: Novartis, Koray Tascilar: None declared, Veronica Kaufmann: None declared, Arnd Kleyer Consultant of: Lilly, Gilead, Novartis,Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Lilly, David Simon Grant/research support from: Else Kröner-Memorial Scholarship, Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis, Lilly, Johannes Knitza Grant/research support from: Research Grant: Novartis, Fabian Hartmann: None declared, Susanne Adam: None declared, Axel Hueber Grant/research support from: Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, EIT Health, EU-IMI, DFG, Universität Erlangen (EFI), Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Speakers bureau: GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 946.1-946
Author(s):  
S. Dauth ◽  
M. Köhm ◽  
T. Oberwahrenbrock ◽  
U. Henkemeier ◽  
T. Rossmanith ◽  
...  

Background:Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory joint disease. Strategies for its early detection and diagnosis are of high importance as prompt treatment improves clinical and structural outcome. Autoantibodies against cyclic citrullinated proteins (anti-CCP) have been associated with RA-development. Non-specific musculoskeletal (nsMSK) symptoms are often described prior to RA development. Majority of patients with nsMSK symptoms present to their general practice (GP) first. Studies of early arthritis cohorts have shown that many early arthritis patients cannot be accurately diagnosed at their first visit and are often referred as undifferentiated arthritis patients.Objectives:To evaluate the incidence of anti-CCP positivity in patients with new onset of nsMSK symptoms and the incidence of RA in these patients over a 3-year follow-up period compared to anti-CPP negative patients.Methods:In this prospective study (PANORA), 978 patients with new onset of nsMSK symptoms were included in 77 GP sites in Germany. Patients with a positive anti-CCP rapid-test (CCPoint®) were referred to Rheumatology Department (RD) for rheumatological assessment, RA-evaluation and an anti-CCP validation test (ELISA). ELISA anti-CCP positive patients without RA were monitored every 6 months for a total follow-up of 36 months or until RA-diagnosis. Patients with a negative anti-CPP result (CCPoint® or ELISA) are followed up with a questionnaire after 1 and 3 y.Results:From 978 included patients, 105 (10.7%) were CCPoint® positive. 96 were tested with ELISA and 27 (28.1%) were confirmed anti-CCP positive. 9 (33.3%) were diagnosed with RA at the first RD visit (study visit 2); 4 further patients were diagnosed with RA during the follow-up (FU) period so far. Overall, 48.1% of ELISA-positive (ELISA+) patients were diagnosed with RA up to now; 11 ELISA+ patients are still in the FU period of the study. Of the 868 CCPoint® negative patients, currently, 282 have filled out a 1-year FU questionnaire; 3.5% of those reported a RA diagnosis (Table 1). As expected, clinical parameters at V2 (e.g. CRP, swollen and tender joint count) were worse in the ELISA+/RA+ group compared to the ELISA-/RA- group, but no obvious differences were detected between ELISA+ patients who were diagnosed with RA during the FU period (after V2) and ELISA-/RA- patientsTable 1.Number and percentage of patients with a RA diagnosisAnti-CCP statusVisit 2Follow-up*TotalPoint-of-Care Test --3.5% (10 of 282)#3.5% (10 of 282)#Point-of-Care Test + / ELISA -2.9% (2 of 69)0% (0 of 34)#2.9% (2 of 69)Point-of-Care Test + / ELISA +33.3% (9 of 27)14.8% (4 of 27)48.1% (13 of 27)$* 1 year-questionnaire for Point-of-Care Test and ELISA negative patients or every 6 months follow-up for ELISA positive patients;#Patient-reported;$11 patients are still in the follow-up phase of the studyConclusion:Currently, 48.1% of anti-CCP+ (ELISA) patients have received a RA diagnosis, whereas 3.5% of the anti-CCP- (CCPoint®) received a RA diagnosis (patient reported), which underlines, that anti-CCP can be used as a marker to identify high-risk patients in GP setting. While clinical parameters are correlated with the diagnosis of RA, they are not suited for predicting future RA development alone. Anti-CCP, possibly in combination with additional parameters imaging, might increase the likelihood to early diagnose or predict RA development.Figure 1.Study overview: Patient distribution depending on anti-CCP results and RA diagnosis.Disclosure of Interests:Stephanie Dauth Grant/research support from: BMS, Michaela Köhm Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, BMS, LEO, Consultant of: BMS, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Timm Oberwahrenbrock Grant/research support from: BMS, Ulf Henkemeier: None declared, Tanja Rossmanith Grant/research support from: Janssen, BMS, LEO, Pfizer, Karola Mergenthal Grant/research support from: BMS, Juliana J. Petersen Grant/research support from: BMS, Harald Burkhardt Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Consultant of: Sanofi, Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, UCB, Eli Lilly, Chugai, Bristol Myer Scripps, Janssen, and Novartis, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, UCB, Eli Lilly, Chugai, Bristol Myer Scripps, Janssen, and Novartis, Frank Behrens Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene, Lilly and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai


RMD Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. e001372
Author(s):  
Sella Aarrestad Provan ◽  
Brigitte Michelsen ◽  
Joseph Sexton ◽  
Tillmann Uhlig ◽  
Hilde Berner Hammer

ObjectivesTo define fatigue trajectories in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiate biological DMARD (bDMARD) treatment, and explore baseline predictors for a trajectory of continued fatigue.MethodsOne-hundred and eighty-four patients with RA initiating bDMARDs were assessed at 0, 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months. Swollen and tender joint counts, patient reported outcomes (PROMs), blood samples and ultrasound examinations were collected at each time point. Fatigue was assessed by the fatigue Numeric Rating Scale (0–10) from the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) questionnaire. Clinically significant fatigue was predefined as fatigue ≥4. Three trajectories of interest were defined according to level of RAID fatigue: no fatigue (≤3 at 5/6 visits), improved fatigue (≥4 at start, but ≤3 at follow-up) and continued fatigue (≥4 at 5/6 visits). Baseline variables were compared between groups by bivariate analyses, and logistic regression models were used to explore baseline predictors of continued vs improved fatigue.ResultsThe majority of patients starting bDMARD therapy followed one of three fatigue trajectories, (no fatigue; n=61, improved; n=33 and continued fatigue; n=53). Patients with continued fatigue were more likely to be anti–citrullinated protein antibody and/or rheumatoid factor positive and had higher baseline PROMs compared to the other groups, while there were no differences between the groups for variables of inflammation including. Patient global, tender joint count and anxiety were predictors for the continued fatigue trajectory.DiscussionA trajectory of continued fatigue was determined by PROMs and not by inflammatory RA disease activity.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang Hun Kim ◽  
Yoo Seok Kim ◽  
Seongcheol Kim ◽  
Ki Tae Jung

Abstract Background Bleeding after thyroidectomy occurs due to violent coughing during emergence. Dexmedetomidine is helpful for the smooth emergence and suppression of cough. The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine on postoperative bleeding after thyroidectomy. Methods Randomized, double-blind, controlled trials were conducted in female patients (ASA I–II, aged 20 to 60 years). The patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Approximately 15 min before the end of the surgery, dexmedetomidine was administered (0.6 µg/kg/h) without a loading dose in group D (n = 69), and normal saline was administered in group S (n = 70) at the same infusion rate. Hemodynamic data, coughing reflex, extubation time, Ramsay sedation scale (RSS), and recovery time were assessed during the administration of the study drugs and recovery from anesthesia. The amount of postoperative hemorrhage was measured for 3 days. Results Data from a total of 139 patients were analyzed. The incidence of severe cough was significantly lower in group D than in group S (4.3 % vs. 11.5 %, P = 0.022). The emergence agitation in the postanesthetic care unit was significantly lower in group D than in group S (P = 0.01). Postoperative bleeding was significantly lower in group D than in group S until the second postoperative day (P = 0.015). Conclusions Dexmedetomidine can be helpful in decreasing bleeding after thyroidectomy by reducing coughing and emergence agitation. Trial registration This study was registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov (registration number NCT02412150, 09/04/2015).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document