Improvement in wrist pain with ultrasound-guided glucocorticoid injections: a meta-analysis of individual patient data.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis compares change in wrist pain following ultrasound-guided (US-guided) intra-articular glucocorticoid injections with change in pain after palpation-guided injections in persons with inflammatory arthritis or osteoarthritis. METHODS: Data sources included MEDLINE, Cochrane, BIOSIS, CINAHL, ACR/AHRP abstracts, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that assessed change in wrist pain with direct comparison of US-guided and palpation-guided injections were included in the meta-analysis. Subject-level data was sought from authors of all relevant studies. Primary outcome was mean change in wrist pain from baseline to 1-6 week follow-up by visual analog scale (VAS). Mean difference in VAS was calculated for comparative studies. Secondary outcome was proportion attaining Minimal Clinically Important Improvement (MCII), defined as VAS reduction ≥ 20%. Odds ratios (ORs) of MCII were calculated for comparative studies. Mean differences in VAS and ORs for MCII for comparative studies were combined using fixed and random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Ten studies were eligible, and adequate data was available from 4 studies with direct comparison of US-guided and palpation-guided treatment arms. The difference in mean VAS reduction (US-guided minus palpation-guided) ranged from-0.2 to 1.3, with a combined estimate of 1.0 (95% CI 0.3, 1.7). OR for MCII in comparative studies ranged from 1.0 to 12.4, with a combined OR of 3.2 (95% CI 1.2, 8.5) in favor of ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: US-guided glucocorticoid injections to the wrist result in greater reductions in pain, and greater likelihood of attaining MCII than palpation-guided injections at 1-6 weeks follow-up.

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.

Diabetes insipidus as a complication of Wegener's granulomatosis and its treatment with biologic agents.

Wegener's granulomatosis of the pituitary gland resulting in diabetes insipidus is a rare complication of the disease. Standard treatment for Wegener's granulomatosis involves a combination of prednisolone and cylophosphamide, however biologic agents are now being used in refractory cases. We report three cases of patients with diabetes insipidus as a complication of Wegener's granulomatosis who were treated with biologic agents. All three cases showed clinical response to treatment with biologic agents including rituximab and alemtuzumab and two cases demonstrated improvement in pituitary gland abnormalities by MRI. Clinicians should be aware that diabetes insipidus can present as a complication of Wegener's granulomatosis and that biologic therapies may be effective in refractory cases.

Attitudes of United Kingdom rheumatologists to musculoskeletal ultrasound practice and training.

OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to describe what clinical rheumatologists currently use musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) for, how they are currently training and is the first study to survey rheumatologists to determine their preferences for MSUS training implementation. METHODS: 250 questionnaires were distributed at the British Society of Rheumatology Annual General Meeting (BSR AGM), 2005. RESULTS: 126 (50%) of questionnaires were completed by UK rheumatologists and were analysed. 117 (93%) of the respondents use MSUS imaging for patient management, with 41 (33%) indicating they perform MSUS themselves. Only two (2%) performed MSUS for >5 years. Rheumatologists use MSUS to image all peripheral joints-particularly the hands and feet-to assess joint and soft tissue inflammation and to guide joint injections. Lack of training in MSUS was the principal reason for not performing MSUS. Respondents expressed a preference for future training to be via a programme of regular sessions, with training delivered by either consultant radiologists or rheumatologists. Mentoring was the educational tool and assessment method of choice. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents use MSUS in the management of their patients, with a third performing MSUS themselves. The report indicates rheumatologists' preferences on how training should be delivered in the future.