The IMPACT study:A clustered randomized controlled trial to assess the effect of a referral algorithm for axial spondyloarthritis

Background A substantial number of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) have axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but early recognition of these patients is difficult for general practitioners (GPs). The Case Finding Axial Spondyloarthritis (CaFaSpA) referral strategy has shown to be able to identify patients with CLBP at risk for axSpA, but its impact on clinical daily practice is yet unknown. Objective To assess the effect of the CaFaSpA referral strategy on pain caused by disability in primary care patients with CLBP. Methods Within this clustered randomized controlled trial 93 general practices were randomized to either the CaFaSpA referral model (intervention) or usual primary care (control). In each group primary care patients between 18 and 45 years with CLBP were included. The primary outcome was disability caused by CLBP, measured with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at baseline and four months. Secondary outcome was the frequency of new axSpA diagnosis. Descriptive analyses were performed, and a linear mixed-effects model was used. Results In total 679 CLBP patients were included of which 333 patients were allocated to the intervention group and 346 to the control group. Sixty-four percent were female and mean age was 36.2 years. The mean RMDQ score at baseline was 8.39 in the intervention group and 8.61 in the control group. At four months mean RMDQ score was 7.65 in the intervention group and 8.15 in the control group. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.50). Six (8%) out of the 75 finally referred patients, were diagnosed with axSpA by their rheumatologist. Conclusions The CaFaSpA referral strategy for axSpA did not have an effect on disability after four months caused by CLBP. However, the strategy is able to detect the axSpA patient within the large CLBP population sufficiently

A comparison of an interferon-gamma release assay and tuberculin skin test in refractory inflammatory disease patients screened for latent tuberculosis prior to the initiation of a first tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor

Treatment with TNFα inhibitors increases risk of reactivating a latent tuberculosis\infection (LTBI). Therefore screening, prior to therapy with TNFα inhibitors, has been recommended, even in low-endemic areas such as well-developed Western Europe countries. We evaluated interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA), as opposed to tuberculin skin test (TST), for detection of LTBI in refractory inflammatory disease patients prior to the initiation of a first TNFα inhibitor. In addition, we evaluated the impact of impaired cellular immunity on IGRA. Patients starting on TNFα inhibition were screened for LTBI by TST and IGRA (Quantiferon-TB Gold). Data on tuberculosis exposure and Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccination were obtained. Cellular immunity was assessed by CD4+ T lymphocyte cell count. Nine out of 56 patients (16.1%) tested positive for LTBI. A concordant positive result was present in three patients with a medical history of tuberculosis exposure. Six patients with discordant test results had either: (1) a negative TST and positive IGRA in combination with a medical history of tuberculosis exposure (n = 1) or (2) a positive TST and negative IGRA in combination with BCG vaccination (n = 3) or a medical history of tuberculosis exposure (n = 2). CD4+ T lymphocyte cell counts were within normal limits, and no indeterminate results of IGRA were present. IGRA appears reliable for confirming TST and excluding a false positive TST (due to prior BCG vaccination) in this Dutch serie of patients. In addition, IGRA may detect one additional case of LTBI out of 56 patients that would otherwise be missed using solely TST. Immune suppression appears not to result significantly in lower CD4+ T lymphocyte cell counts and indeterminate results of IGRA, despite systemic corticosteroid treatment in half of the patients. Confirmation in larger studies, including assessment of cost-effectiveness, is required