Improvement in diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal conditions with one-stop clinic-based ultrasonography

Diagnostic issues in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

To summarise the evidence on diagnostic issues in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of D2T RA.

Methods

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed regarding the optimal confirmation of a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and of mimicking diseases and the assessment of inflammatory disease activity. PubMed and Embase databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.

Results

Eighty-two papers were selected for detailed assessment. The identified evidence had several limitations: (1) no studies were found including D2T RA patients specifically, and only the minority of studies included RA patients in whom there was explicit doubt about the diagnosis of RA or presence of inflammatory activity; (2) mostly only correlations were reported, not directly useful to evaluate the accuracy of detecting inflammatory activity in clinical practice; (3) heterogeneous, and often suboptimal, reference standards were used and (4) (thus) only very few studies had a low risk of bias.

To ascertain a diagnosis of RA or relevant mimicking disease, no diagnostic test with sufficient validity and accuracy was identified. To ascertain inflammatory activity in patients with RA in general and in those with obesity and fibromyalgia, ultrasonography (US) was studied most extensively and was found to be the most promising diagnostic test.

Conclusions

This SLR highlights the scarcity of high-quality studies regarding diagnostic issues in D2T RA. No diagnostic tests with sufficient validity and accuracy were found to confirm nor exclude the diagnosis of RA nor its mimicking diseases in D2T RA patients. Despite the lack of high-quality direct evidence, US may have an additional value to assess the presence of inflammatory activity in D2T RA patients, including those with concomitant obesity or fibromyalgia.

Should ultrasound be used routinely in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis?

INTRODUCTION

A growing body of evidence indicates the benefits of early diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and prompt treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDS) in terms of relieving symptoms, improving prognosis, and reducing long-term complications. There is however some controversy over the most beneficial method of imaging in providing accurate early diagnosis. Though current practice favours clinical and radiological assessment, this is increasingly supplemented by ultrasound techniques (and, to a lesser extent, CT and MRI scanning). While EULAR and ESSR favour the use of ultrasonography (US) as the first-line investigation in cases of suspected RA, a recent NICE review upholds the traditional place of plain film radiographs of hands and feet to detect erosions as early signs of synovitis. This review considers the evidence for US in the early diagnosis of RA and the case for it becoming the primary assessment modality in rheumatology clinics.

AIMS

This paper aims to assess the current literature on the efficacy of ultrasonography in diagnosing early RA, by comparing US with alternative imaging modalities. The goal is to propose the most appropriate method of diagnosis to improve early initiation of DMARD treatment for optimum disease outcomes.

METHODS

Searches for related studies and review articles were carried out using electronic databases and hand searches. Additional references were gleaned from the bibliographies of included papers. Related articles and pop-outs from PubMed were also used. The search was refined in PubMed, by only using reviews which were written in English and published in past 10 years and had full free text available.

RESULTS

This review confirms that US has a high level of sensitivity in diagnosing RA (and hence a low risk of missing cases of RA which might benefit from early treatment with DMARDs). It also has a high level of specificity (and hence a low risk of falsely diagnosing somebody with RA who may suffer adverse effects of DMARD therapy). US is already widely available and well accepted by clinicians and patients. It does not involve exposure to radiation and can be readily delivered by appropriately trained staff.

CONCLUSION

This review of relevant studies indicates that US should become accepted as the investigation with the most favourable balance of benefits to risks in the early diagnosis of RA. Given the continuing controversy surrounding studies of different imaging techniques in RA, further research into the diagnostic role of US in RA is indicated.

Imaging in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and osteoarthritis: An international viewpoint on the current knowledge and future research priorities

Imaging is increasingly used in the routine management of rheumatic diseases as well as in the clinical trials of these disorders. This viewpoint, authored by a group of international imaging experts following two meetings dedicated to imaging in rheumatology, reports a consensus about the current knowledge and addresses where further research should be focused based on the views of the international imaging experts and discussion of the evidence with attending imaging practitioners. The goal was to maximize the potential of imaging to improve the clinical management of four rheumatic diseases. These rheumatic diseases include rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and osteoarthritis.

The added value of musculoskeletal ultrasound to clinical evaluation in the treatment decision of rheumatoid arthritis outpatients: physician experience matters

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal ultrasound improves the accuracy of detecting the level of disease activity (DA) in RA patients, although its impact on the final treatment decision in a real clinical setting is uncertain. The objectives were to define the percentage of clinical scenarios from an ongoing cohort of RA outpatients in which the German Ultrasound Score on 7 joints (GUS-7) impacted the treatment and to explore if the impact differed between a senior rheumatologist (SR) vs. a trainee (TR).

METHODS

Eighty-five consecutive and randomly selected RA outpatients underwent 170 assessments, 85 each by the SR and the TR. Initially, both physicians (blinded to each other) performed a rheumatic assessment and recommended a preliminary treatment. Then, the patients underwent the GUS-7 evaluation by an experienced rheumatologist blinded to clinical evaluations; selected joints of the clinically dominant hand were assessed by gray-scale and power Doppler (PD). In the final step, the TR and the SR integrated the GUS-7 findings with their previous evaluation and reviewed their recommendations. The patients received the final recommendation from the SR to avoid patient confusion. The study was approved by the Internal Review Board and all the patients signed informed consent. GUS-7 usefulness was separately evaluated by the SR and the TR according to a visual analogue scale (0 = not useful at all, 10 = very useful). Descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

The patients were primarily middle-aged females (91.4%) with (mean ± SD) disease duration of 7.5 ± 3.9 years. The majority of them (69.2% according to TR and 71.8% to SR) were in DAS28-ESR-remission. In 34 of 170 clinical scenarios (20%), the GUS-7 findings modified the final treatment proposal; 24 of these scenarios were determined by the TR vs. 10 by the SR: 70.5% vs. 29.5%, p = 0.01. Treatment changes (increase, decrease and joint injection) were similar between both specialists. As expected, the TR rated the GUS-7 usefulness higher than the SR, particularly in the clinical scenarios where the GUS-7 findings impacted treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Musculoskeletal ultrasound added to standard rheumatic assessments impacted the treatment proposal in a limited number of patients; the impact was greater in the TR.

Ultrasound in management of rheumatoid arthritis: ARCTIC randomised controlled strategy trial

OBJECTIVE

 To determine whether a treatment strategy based on structured ultrasound assessment would lead to improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, compared with a conventional strategy.

DESIGN

 Multicentre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled strategy trial.

SETTING

 Ten rheumatology departments and one specialist centre in Norway, from September 2010 to September 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

 238 patients were recruited between September 2010 and April 2013, of which 230 (141 (61%) female) received the allocated intervention and were analysed for the primary outcome. The main inclusion criteria were age 18-75 years, fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug naivety with indication for disease modifying drug therapy, and time from first patient reported swollen joint less than two years. Patients with abnormal kidney or liver function or major comorbidities were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

 122 patients were randomised to an ultrasound tight control strategy targeting clinical and imaging remission, and 116 patients were randomised to a conventional tight control strategy targeting clinical remission. Patients in both arms were treated according to the same disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug escalation strategy, with 13 visits over two years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

 The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a combination between 16 and 24 months of clinical remission, no swollen joints, and non-progression of radiographic joint damage. Secondary outcomes included measures of disease activity, radiographic progression, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. All participants who attended at least one follow-up visit were included in the full analysis set.

RESULTS

 26 (22%) of the 118 analysed patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and 21 (19%) of the 112 analysed patients in the clinical tight control arm reached the primary endpoint (mean difference 3.3%, 95% confidence interval -7.1% to 13.7%). Secondary endpoints (disease activity, physical function, and joint damage) were similar between the two groups. Six (5%) patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and seven (6%) patients in the conventional arm had serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

 The systematic use of ultrasound in the follow-up of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to current recommendations is not justified on the basis of the ARCTIC results. The findings highlight the need for randomised trials assessing the clinical application of medical technology.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01205854.

Role of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of rheumatic diseases in light of ACR/EULAR guidelines

In the past years, ultrasound imaging has become an integral element of the diagnostic process in rheumatic diseases. It enables the identification of a range of inflammatory changes in joint cavities, sheaths and bursae, and allows their activity to be assessed. In 2012, experts of the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology prepared recommendations concerning the role of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of musculoskeletal diseases. Ultrasound was considered the method of choice in imaging peripheral synovitis. Moreover, ultrasound imaging has been popularized thanks to the new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis issued by the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism in 2010. They underline the role of ultrasound imaging in the detection of articular inflammatory changes that are difficult to assess unambiguously in the clinical examination. These criteria have become the basis for recommendations prepared by experts from the European League Against Rheumatism concerning medical imaging in rheumatoid arthritis. Nine of ten recommendations concern ultrasonography which is relevant in detecting diseases, predicting their progression and treatment response, monitoring disease activity and identifying remission. In the new criteria concerning polymyalgia rheumatica from 2012, an ultrasound scan of the shoulder and pelvic girdle was considered an alternative to clinical assessment. Moreover, the relevance of ultrasonography in the diagnosis and monitoring of peripheral spondyloarthropathies was widely discussed in 2014 during the meeting of the European League Against Rheumatism in Paris.

Impact of systematic ultrasound of the knee on the rheumatologist's clinical decision in patients consulting for knee pain

This clinical practice study aimed to determine whether the results of systematic US in patients with knee pain modified the rheumatologist's choices concerning diagnostic management and therapy. Patients consulting for non-traumatic knee pain, with recent radiography of the knee, were consecutively included over 9 months. After the radio-clinical assessment, the rheumatologist made a principal diagnosis concerning the knee pain and defined the therapeutic management and a complementary imaging strategy if necessary. US of the painful knee was then done in accordance with the reference protocol with the operators blinded to the clinical results. After reading the US report, the rheumatologist re-evaluated his/her diagnostic and therapeutic approach and the complementary exploration strategy. In the 100 patients included (mean age = 62.9 ± 18.5 years, duration of knee pain = 14.4 ± 8.1 months) with a majority of knee osteoarthritis (61 %), the diagnosis was clarified or modified after the US in 31 % of cases (calcium pyrophosphate deposition arthropathy and tendinitis principally), which led to an intensification of therapy in 15 % of cases and a de-escalation in 5 % of cases. These changes mainly concerned injectable treatments. The US of the painful knee resulted in few changes in imaging prescriptions (6 %), and this was not significant for the number of MRIs requested. In real-life practice in rheumatology, systematic US of the knee clarified the initial clinical diagnosis in almost one-third of cases, but did not significantly modify the therapeutic management, which remained symptomatic, and did not reduce the number of other imaging examinations after the initial radio-clinical assessment.

Utility of musculoskeletal ultrasound in a Department of Defense rheumatology practice: a four-year retrospective experience

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the utility of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) in a rheumatology department and characterize relevant clinical trends.

METHODS

Electronic medical records of all patients (n = 503) requiring MSUS in our department from January 2007 to December 2011 were reviewed. Rheumatologists performed MSUS using MyLab 25 or MyLab 70 systems. Clinical data were collected, including age, sex, symptoms, joint(s) examined, MSUS findings, procedures, further radiologic studies, and additional specialty consults. Results were tabulated from 717 total MSUS encounters and each was categorized as a completed encounter or an incomplete encounter. All magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports that followed MSUS were examined for concurrence. Cumulative numbers of MSUS examinations and MRIs were totaled. The Medicare global national average cost for MRIs and potential savings were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 789 joint sites were examined by MSUS. There were 84 US-guided procedures. Overall, 158 specialty consults were generated. After MSUS, 55 additional radiologic studies were ordered. There were 613 (85.5%) primary completed MSUS encounters and 104 cases (14.5%) requiring further imaging studies or an orthopedic consultation. There was an increased use of MSUS and a concurrent decreased use of MRI in our department over 4 consecutive years. We calculated the total potential savings from our rheumatology service to the Department of Defense as approximately $27,937.80 to $38,047.20 over 4 years.

CONCLUSION

MSUS has a positive impact in a rheumatology practice. MSUS augments the clinical examination, influences diagnosis and management, decreases reliance on other imaging modalities, and reduces health care costs.

Imaging tools in rheumatoid arthritis: ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging

As modern imaging tools such as US and MRI become increasingly available, rheumatologists now have access to highly sensitive measures to assist in the evaluation of both the inflammatory and structural damage components underlying various arthritides over the disease duration. Both US and MRI have associated strengths and weaknesses, and at times they can provide complementary information. This review compares the performance of US vs MRI as diagnostic, prognostic and monitoring tools for RA, and to provide insights into which modality can provide the optimal information for a desired outcome in a given clinical trial or practice situation.

Imaging in rheumatoid arthritis

The optimal management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) requires tools that allow early and accurate disease diagnosis, prediction of poor prognosis and responsive monitoring of therapeutic outcomes. Conventional radiography has been widely used in both clinical and research settings to assess RA joint damage due to its feasibility, but it has limitations in early disease detection and difficulty distinguishing between active treatments in modern trials. Imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) have the advantage of detecting both joint inflammation and damage and hence they can provide additional and unique information. This can be especially useful in the context of early and/or undifferentiated joint disease when detection of soft tissue and bone marrow abnormalities is desirable. This review focusses on the recent literature concerning modern imaging, and provides clinicians with an insight into the role of imaging in modern RA diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring.

The role of ultrasound in the diagnosis and follow-up of early inflammatory arthritis

The inflammatory arthritides are a group of chronic, often debilitating disorders characterized by synovial inflammation and progressive joint destruction. The primary diagnostic aim is to recognize the inflammatory arthritis at an early stage, such that therapies may be implemented before irreversible joint destruction has occurred. The radiologist now plays a pivotal role both in making an accurate and early diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis as well as assessing treatment response. This article reviews the current literature and presents our approach to the sonographic assessment of early inflammatory arthritis.

A one-stop approach to the management of soft tissue and degenerative musculoskeletal conditions using clinic-based ultrasonography

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

One-stop clinics aim at assessment, investigation and initiating treatment in a single hospital visit. They have been proven to be cost-effective and to increase patient satisfaction in various specialties. The aim of this study was to describe the one-stop approach to managing soft tissue and degenerative musculoskeletal conditions using clinic-based musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS).

METHODS

A retrospective case record review was carried out of patients assessed and managed in the musculoskeletal clinic by a musculoskeletal and sports physician over a 10-month period.

RESULTS

A total of 1,166 patients were assessed and managed in a total of 155 outpatient clinics. The age range of patients was 19 to 85 years (median age 45 years). The diagnoses included traumatic or overuse tendinopathy, degenerative arthritis, bursitis, acute/chronic sporting injuries and acute/chronic back pain. A total of 1,012 patients (87%) had conditions related to the appendicular system (shoulder girdle, upper limb, pelvic girdle and lower limb) and 154 patients were referred with spinal pain. All patients with appendicular system problems had a definite diagnosis and treatment initiated on the first visit to the clinic. In 658 (65%) patients, a diagnostic ultrasound was deemed an appropriate investigation to improve the accuracy of diagnosis and more than half of them (352 patients) needed ultrasound-guided injections as part of the management of their conditions. A portable GE Healthcare LOGIQe machine with a 10 MHz linear probe and colour Doppler flow imaging was used to perform all scans. No adverse incidents were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of clinic-based MSUS enables a one-stop approach, reduces repeated hospital appointments and improves quality of care in an outpatient musculoskeletal clinic.

Ultrasound of the hands and feet for rheumatological disorders: influence on clinical diagnostic confidence and patient management

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to quantify the impact that ultrasound (US) of the hands and feet has on the rheumatologists' diagnostic confidence and on patient management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

There were 62 consecutive referrals from two rheumatologists for US of the hands and/or feet for this prospective controlled observational study. Measurements of diagnostic confidence for both specific clinical findings as well as overall diagnosis using a Likert scale were made both before and after the US examination in each case. Proposed management was also recorded before US and then with the benefit of the US result. McNemar's test was performed to determine differences in diagnostic certainty and proposed management before and after US.

RESULTS

The physician certainty for specific clinical findings increased significantly following US for synovitis (9.7 vs 38.7%), tenosynovitis (9.7 vs 46.8%), erosions (1.6 vs 58.1%), enthesitis (50.0 vs 83.9%) and other (53.2 vs 77.4%). The physician certainty for overall diagnosis increased significantly for seronegative arthritis (46.8 vs 61.3%), inflammatory osteoarthritis (46.8 vs 87.1%), and primary osteoarthritis (46.8 vs 73.0%). A total of 88.7% of patients had disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs as a proposed management option before US vs 48.4% after US. Before US, 4.8% of patients had non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug as a proposed management option versus 45.2% after US.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound of the hands and/or feet significantly influenced the rheumatologists' diagnostic confidence in specific clinical findings and management plans.