Pros and cons of TNF inhibitors and tocilizumab in the treatment of large-vessel vasculitis.

Large-vessel vasculitides (LVVs) include giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu's arteritis (TAK). Even if similar, these two entities differ in terms of treatment and outcomes.High doses of glucocorticoids (GCs) are still the first choice for the treatment of both conditions. However, adjunctive therapies are recommended in selected patients in order to decrease the risk of relapse and the amount of side effects related to GCs. Tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFis) and tocilizumab (TCZ) are used for the treatment of LVVs, with some differences. In GCA, TCZ has been proved to be effective and safe in inducing remission with some open questions still remaining, whereas data about TNFis are scarce and non-conclusive. On the contrary, in TAK either TNFis or TCZ seem to be able to control symptoms and angiographic progression in refractory forms.However, their place in the management of treatment must still be clarified, and as a result the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR guidelines slightly differ in the recommendations about when and what treatment to start. Thus, the aim of this review is to look at the evidence on the use of TNFis and TCZ in LVVs, outlining the pros and cons of both therapies.

Lumbar interspinous bursitis in active polymyalgia rheumatica.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the inflammatory involvement of lumbar interspinous bursae in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Ten consecutive, untreated new patients with PMR and pain in the shoulder and pelvic girdles were investigated. Seven patients with spondyloarthritis (4 with psoriatic spondyloarthrits, one with entheropatic spondyloarthritis, and 2 with ankylosing spondylitis) as well as 2 patients with spinal osteoarthritis and 2 patients with rheumatoid arthritis with lumbar pain served as controls. MRI of lumbar spine was performed in all PMR patients and controls. Nine patients (5 PMR patients and 4 controls) also had MRI of the thoracic spine. RESULTS: MRI evidence of interspinous lumbar bursitis was found in 9/10 patients with PMR and in 5/11 controls. A moderate to marked (grade ≥2 on a semiquantitative 0-3 scale) lumbar bursitis occurred significantly more frequently in patients with PMR than in control patients (60% vs. 9%, p=0.020). In most of the patients and controls lumbar bursitis was found at the L3-L5 interspaces. Only 2 patients had bursitis at a different level (one patient had widespread lumbar bursitis, and one control at L2-L4). No interspinous bursitis was demonstrated by MRI of the thoracic spine in patients and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammation of lumbar bursae may be responsible for the low back pain reported by patients with PMR. The prominent inflammatory involvement of bursae including those of the lumbar spine supports the hypothesis that PMR may be a disorder affecting predominantly extra-articular synovial structures.

Does early arthritis clinic organisation improve outcomes? What evidence is there? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review aimed to identify studies addressing the effect of the establishment of a structured organisation programme, named early arthritis clinic (EAC), finalized to manage patients with early arthritis (EA) or suspected early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA). METHODS: A literature search was performed until May 2012 using electronic databases. Additional information was obtained through a hand and grey literature search. Primary and secondary outcomes and eligibility criteria have been defined. RESULTS: The search provided a total of 3367 citations and, after the selection process, 11 non randomised controlled trials were selected, including a total of 8240 participants. The efficacy of EAC did clearly emerge with regard to reduction of the referral lag time and of the time to treatment (secondary outcomes). Only two studies met the primary outcomes: one study demonstrated that the EAC contributed to reducing disease activity and radiographic progression but not functional disability, while another reported a reduction of pain after a 6-12-month period of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Whether the establishment of EAC would improve the prognosis of EA in terms of primary outcomes such as clinical, functional and radiologic progression compared to patients managed outside from EAC does appear a still poorly addressed issue in the literature, which should be recognised as an urgent unmet need by the rheumatology community to gain more evidence-based information on this topic.