Search

Objectives Very little is known on the efficacy and safety of drugs for the management of chronic calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal inflammatory arthritis. The objectives of this work were to describe the drugs used in the management of chronic CPP crystal inflammatory arthritis in expert European centres, and to examine treatment retention. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study. Charts from patients with a diagnosis of persistent inflammatory and/or recurrent acute CPP crystal arthritis were reviewed in seven European centres. Baseline characteristics were collected, and visits at months 3, 6, 12 and 24 included an assessment of treatment response and safety. Results One hundred and ninety-four treatments were initiated in 129 patients. Colchicine (used first-line in n  = 73/86), methotrexate (used first-line in n  = 14/36), anakinra (n  = 27) and tocilizumab (n  = 25) were the most prescribed treatments, while long-term corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, canakinumab and sarilumab were used occasionally. The 24-month on-drug retention was higher for tocilizumab (40%) than anakinra (18.5%) (P  < 0.05), while the difference between colchicine (29.1%) and methotrexate (44.4%) was not statistically significant (P  = 0.10). Adverse events led to 14.1% of colchicine discontinuations (100% of diarrhoea), 4.3% for methotrexate, 31.8% for anakinra and 20% for tocilizumab; all other discontinuations were related to insufficient response or losses to follow-up. Efficacy outcomes did not differ significantly between treatments throughout follow-up. Conclusion Daily colchicine is the first-line therapy used in chronic CPP crystal inflammatory arthritis, which is considered efficient in a third to half of cases. Second-line treatments include methotrexate and tocilizumab, which have higher retention than anakinra. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]