SAT0109 Ultrasonic evaluation of joint involvement in established ra: active synovitis predicts sustained treatment changes in suspected biologic failure. (12th June 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Batten, R.L.; Mohammed, O.; Probert, L.; Wright, D.; Atchia, I.
• Is Part Of: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. Volume 77(2018)Supplement 2
• Page Start: 917
• Page End: 917
• Publication Date: 2018-06-12
• Subjects: Rheumatism -- Periodicals; 616.723005
• DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-eular.4264
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0003-4967

Abstract

Abstract : Background: EULAR guidelines recommend treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) targeted to remission. 1 Biologic switching should be considered where there is at least moderate disease activity (DAS28 >3.2). The role of ultrasound (US) in guiding treatment is perhaps less clear. D'Agostino et al have proposed a novel algorithm based on current best evidence. 2 Objectives: We present a case series of 30 RA patients with perceived biologic failure. By applying the algorithm to this group of patients we reviewed the impact of musculoskeletal ultrasound findings on treatment changes when compared to DAS28 assessment alone. Methods: All patients had US of the Backhaus 7 joints on the most affected side, and any additional symptomatic joints. A global OMERACT-EULAR synovitis score (GLOESS) was calculated for each patient. 3 DAS28 was calculated at the time of US, and clinician opinion to continue or switch biologic was documented pre and post US. Patient notes were reviewed at 6 months to assess whether treatment changes were sustained. Results: 26 patients had DAS28 >3.2. Of these, 10 were found to have GLOESS >6 and subsequently switched biologic therapy. 4 patients had DAS28 <3.2, despite clinical suspicion of persistent inflammatory disease. Of these patients, 2 were found to have GLOESS >6, and subsequently switched to an alternative biologic. At 6 months 20/24 patient's management remained consistent with previous US findings, 2 patients escalated treatment despite a previously negative US, 1 patient declined escalation (although US showed synovitis), 1 patient switched due to intolerance and 6 were lost to follow-up. Conclusions: US significantly reduced the need to switch treatment in this cohort of patients compared with DAS28. Longitudinal follow up supports the validity of US to determine those with active disease whilst on a biologic. The use of US may prevent over-treatment, and subsequently reduce morbidity and financial cost. Further work is needed to evaluate the clinical impact and cost effectiveness of routine US prior considering a change in biologic therapy. References: [1] Smolen JS, et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:631-7. [2] D'Agostino MA, et al. Novel algorithms for the pragmatic use of ultrasound in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: from diagnosis to remission. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2016;75:1902-1908. [3] D'Agostino MA. Exploring a new ultrasound score as a clinical predictive tool in patients with rheumatoid arthritis starting abatacept: results from the APPRAISE study. RMD Open 2016 May;5;2(1). Disclosure of Interest: None declared