Remitting seronegative symmetrical synovitis with pitting oedema following administration of the ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19 Coronavirus vaccine

Introduction: We describe a case of remitting seronegative symmetrical synovitis with pitting oedema (RS3PE) syndrome following administration of the ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19 [recombinant] vaccine, suggesting a possible causal link. Case Description: A 72-year-old man presented to his general practitioner with swollen, oedematous hands and legs 2 weeks after receiving a coronavirus vaccine. He had raised inflammatory markers but remained systemically well. He was initially presumed to have cellulitis, but his symptoms persisted despite several courses of antibiotics. Deep vein thromboses, cardiac failure, renal failure and hypoalbuminaemia were ruled out. Upon Rheumatology review, he was diagnosed as having RS3PE syndrome with the Covid vaccine suspected of being an immunogenic trigger. Following initiation of steroid therapy, his symptoms improved dramatically, as is characteristic of RS3PE syndrome. Discussion: The pathophysiology of RS3PE is unclear. It is known to have various triggers and associations including infections, certain vaccines and malignancy. This case highlights that a coronavirus vaccine (ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19 [recombinant] vaccine) is also a possible trigger. Factors that make the diagnosis likely include an acute onset of symptoms including pitting oedema in a typical distribution, age above 50, and unremarkable autoimmune serology. Other learning points from this case include the importance of antibiotic stewardship and the need to explore non-infectious causes of illness when antibiotics do not improve symptoms. Conclusion: The ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19 [recombinant] vaccine is a possible trigger of RS3PE. However, the benefits of vaccines against coronavirus outweigh the risks in the majority of patients

Clinical Maxillary artery involvement in giant cell arteritis demonstrated by ultrasonography

We describe two cases of giant cell arteritis where involvement of the superficial temporal artery and maxillary artery were demonstrated using colour doppler ultrasonography. Maxillary artery involvement is responsible for the symptoms of jaw claudication and toothache, and even headaches might be due to the involvement of the middle meningeal artery which is a branch of the maxillary artery. The maxillary artery has been difficult to visualise until now. There are international consensus definitions of ultrasonographic abnormalities seen in the superficial temporal artery affected by giant cell arteritis. We have used those definitions to demonstrate hypoechoic changes in the maxillary artery affected by giant cell arteritis. The maxillary artery can be visualised in the infratemporal fossa from an echo window between the condylar and coronoid processes of the mandible. This is the first proof of concept evidence that maxillary arteries can be visualised using bedside ultrasonography in giant cell arteritis

Halo score (temporal artery, its branches and axillary artery) as a diagnostic, prognostic and disease monitoring tool for Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA)

Background Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is a common large vessel vasculitis of the elderly, often associated with sight loss. Glucocorticoids (GC remain the mainstay of treatment, although biologic treatments have been approved. Biomarkers predicting disease severity, relapse rates and damage are lacking in GCA. EULAR recommends ultrasound (US) as the first investigation for suspected GCA. The cardinal US finding, a non-compressible halo, is currently categorised as either negative or positive. However, the extent and severity of this finding may vary. In this study, we hypothesise whether the extent and severity of the halo sign [calculated as a single composite Halo score (HS)] of temporal and axillary arteries may be of diagnostic, prognostic and monitoring importance; whether baseline HS is linked to disease outcomes, relapses and damage; whether HS can stratify GCA patients for individual treatment needs; whether HS can function as an objective monitoring tool during follow up. Methods This is a prospective, observational study. Suspected GCA Participants will be selected from the GCA FTC at the participating centres in the UK. Informed consent will be obtained, and patients managed as part of standard care. Patients with GCA will have HS (temporal and axillary arteries) measured at baseline and months 1,3,6 and 12 long with routine clinical assessments, blood sampling and patient-reported outcomes (EQ5D). Non-GCA patients will be discharged back to the referral team and will have a telephone interview in 6 months. We aim to recruit 272 suspected GCA referrals which should yield 68 patients (25% of referrals) with confirmed GCA. The recruitment will be completed in 1 year with an estimated total study period of 24 months. Discussion The identification of prognostic factors in GCA is both timely and needed. A prognostic marker, such as the HS, could help to stratify GCA patients for an appropriate treatment regimen. Tocilizumab, an IL-6R blocking agent, switches off the acute phase response (C-Reactive Protein), making it difficult to measure the disease activity. Therefore, an independent HS, and changes in that score during treatment and follow-up, maybe a more objective measure of response compare to patient-reported symptoms and clinical assessment alone

Role of the halo sign in the assessment of giant cell arteritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of the halo sign in the assessment of GCA. Methods A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane central register databases up to August 2020. Studies informing on the sensitivity and specificity of the US halo sign for GCA (index test) were selected. Studies with a minimum of five participants were included. Study articles using clinical criteria, imaging such as PET-CT and/or temporal artery biopsy (TAB) as the reference standards were selected. Meta-analysis was conducted with a bivariate model. Results The initial search yielded 4023 studies. Twenty-three studies (patients n = 2711) met the inclusion criteria. Prospective (11 studies) and retrospective (12 studies) studies in academic and non-academic centres were included. Using clinical diagnosis as the standard (18 studies) yielded a pooled sensitivity of 67% (95% CI: 51, 80) and a specificity of 95% (95% CI: 89, 98%). This gave a positive and negative likelihood ratio for the diagnosis of GCA of 14.2 (95% CI: 5.7, 35.5) and 0.375 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.54), respectively. Using TAB as the standard (15 studies) yielded a pooled sensitivity of 63% (95% CI: 50, 75) and a specificity of 90% (95% CI: 81, 95). Conclusion The US halo sign is a sensitive and specific approach for GCA assessment and plays a pivotal role in diagnosis of GCA in routine clinical practice

Diagnostic delay is common for patients with axial spondyloarthritis: Results from the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit

OBJECTIVES: Updated guidelines for patients with axial SpA (axSpA) have sought to reduce diagnostic delay by raising awareness among clinicians. We used the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit (NEIAA) to describe baseline characteristics and time to diagnosis for newly referred patients with axSpA in England and Wales. METHODS: Analyses were performed on sociodemographic and clinical metrics, including time to referral and assessment, for axSpA patients (n = 784) recruited to the NEIAA between May 2018 and March 2020. Comparators were patients recruited to the NEIAA with RA (n = 9270) or mechanical back pain (MBP; n = 370) in the same period. RESULTS: Symptom duration prior to initial rheumatology assessment was longer in axSpA than RA patients (P 6 months, compared with 33.7% of RA patients and 76.0% of MBP patients. Following referral, the median time to initial rheumatology assessment was longer for axSpA than RA patients (36 vs 24 days; P < 0.001) and similar to MBP patients (39 days; P = 0.30). Of the subset of patients deemed eligible for early inflammatory arthritis pathway follow-up, fewer axSpA than RA patients had disease education provided (77.5% vs 97.8%) and RA patients reported a better understanding of their condition and treatment. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic delay in axSpA remains a major challenge despite improved disease understanding and updated referral guidelines. Disease education is provided to fewer axSpA than RA patients, highlighting the need for specialist clinics and support programmes for axSpA patients

Inflammatory back pain:a concept, not a diagnosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The concept of inflammatory back pain (IBP) describes a cohort of patients with chronic back pain (CBP) who have distinct clinical characteristics, rather than being a diagnosis in and of itself. IBP is a common and important feature of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) but this is not the only differential. This review examines the utility of IBP in both primary and secondary care settings. RECENT FINDINGS: There are a number of suggested referral strategies for patients with suspected axSpA that include IBP. These strategies attempt to strike a balance between ensuring potential axSpA patients are not overlooked, whilst simultaneously not overwhelming secondary care services. Their success relies on the clinicians who first encounter these patients being familiar with IBP as a concept; however, it is still poorly recognized by many healthcare professionals. IBP may be helpful as part of a referral strategy; however, other clinical features, laboratory investigations and radiology must be incorporated for the final diagnostic outcome in axSpA. SUMMARY: Delayed diagnosis is a major clinical problem in axSpA and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. When recognized and utilized correctly, IBP can be a useful tool to promote prompt referral to rheumatology services

Corrigendum to: Diagnostic delay is common for patients with axial spondyloarthritis: results from the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit

This is a correction to: Rheumatology, Volume 61, Issue 2, February 2022, Pages 734–742, https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keab42