De Agustin, J. J.

De Miguel, E.

Filippucci, E.

Iagnocco, Annamaria

Mayordomo, L.

Meenagh, G.

Moller, I.

Moragues, C.

Naredo, E.

Salaffi, F.

English

Institutional Research Information System University of Turin

116Letters to the EditorsReplySirs,I read with great interest the study by Pisoni et al., which sheds another light on the management of leflunomide. It confirms that findings of clinical and epidemiologi-cal studies may vary according to various parameters such as patient characteristics and conditions of treatment, which are mostly country-dependent. These discrep-ancies highlight the importance of repeat-ing pharmacoepidemiologic studies in each country to take into account treatment pat-terns which may play a role in the actual efficacy and safety of drugs.Several remarks can be made. The popula-tion in Pisoniʼs study was quite similar to ours and confirms differences with the pop-ulation included in clinical trials. Neverthe-less, the severity of the disease and prior treatment seem to be different. Moreover, there appear to be differences in the man-agement of adverse events (stopping the treatment in our study and reduction of the daily dose or continuation of the treatment in Pisoniʼs study). In the Italian cohort, only 17.9% of the patients had previously re-ceived a loading dose and the dose of leflu-nomide was adjustable as the occasion may have required. The authors seem to explain the lower discontinuation rate by the lower leflunomide dose (lower daily dose without previous loading dose). Era et al: (1) did not find any significant association between loading dose and the presence of adverse events but the number of patients included in their study was too small to draw definite conclusions on this point.Poor et al. (2) found a better efficacy profile with the 20 mg daily dose than with 10 mg. As the two parameters (efficacy and safety) should be taken into account in the treat-ment, it is difficult draw a conclusion re-garding the best approach. In any case, large prospective studies or studies focusing on the role of the dose regimen should be con-ducted in order to improve our knowledge on leflunomide and the best way to manage long-term treatment in real-life settings.Dr. K. MARTIN, PharmD, PhDDepartment of Pharmacology, Bordeaux 2 University, Inserm U657, France.References  1. ERRA A, TOMAS C, BARCELO P, VILARDELL M, MARSAL S: Is the recommended dose of leflunomide the best regimen to treat rheumatoid arthritis patients ? Rheumatology 2003; 42: 1123-4.  2. 3: Leflunomide Multinational Study Group. Efficacy and safety of leflunomide 10 mg versus 20 mg once daily in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: multinational double-blind, randomized trial. Rheumatology 2004; 43: 744-9.Level of agreement between rheumatologists on US image acquisition using a 3D volumetric probeSirs,In recent times, technological advances have enabled the ultrasound (US) exploration of small joints and superficial soft tissues with high-frequency volumetric probes. They provide the possibility to acquire an infinite number of 2D US images within a 3D data set generated automatically, which propos-es to rectify the operator dependency of US in the acquisition process (1, 2). A consen-sus meeting was convened in Barcelona on the 28th of January 2006 for the purpose of verifying that the image acquisition proc-ess using a 3D volumetric probe is operator independent.This was the initial step for clarifying the methodology for a multi-centre internation-al study on hand arthritis.All the participants (9 experienced rheu-matologist sonographers and a rheumatolo-gist with no previous US experience) were asked to acquire 3D data sets of the second metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint in a sin-gle healthy subject as follows: dorsal and volar approaches with hand in the neutral position and dorsal approach with the hand held in full flexion at the MCP joints.The acquisition of the 3D data sets was car-ried out using a Logiq 9 system (General Electrics Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI) equipped with the 4D16L 3D probe.Attention was paid to the correct anatomi-cal positioning of the subject together with the use of an adequate amount of acoustic gel.The 3D data sets were processed collec-tively using dedicated 3D Viewer software (Centricity Radiology RA 600 Version 6.1) compatible with standard personal comput-ers, in order to select the most representa-tive US images of the following standard scans: longitudinal dorsal scan with MCP joint in neutral position and fully flexed.Two sets of mosaic were constructed con-taining the selected US images correspond-ing to the above standard scans.According to the Delphi method (3), the participants were asked to state their level of agreement on the fact that the US images in the mosaics were similar in their depiction of longitudinal dorsal scan, bone profile, ex-tensor tendon and articular cartilage.Moreover, the level of agreement was test-ed in comparing the US images acquired by the inexperienced rheumatologist to those of the experienced rheumatologist sonog-raphers.The Delphi method uses a semi-quantitative scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 6 (strong agreement).The table reports the mean values and standard deviations of the scores.The results of this consensus meeting clearly show the concordance between in-dependent operators in the acquisition of 3D US imagery. In addition, we have also demonstrated that previous US experience or skills are not necessary for obtaining US images indistinguishable from those of the experts. This is the first exercise to verify the operator independent nature of the 3D volumetric probe in acquiring US images of the MCP joint. Similar evidence in other anatomical sites should be gathered to evaluate the full potential of 3D US in rheumatology.E. FILIPPUCCI1*                          L. MAYORDOMO6G. MEENAGH2*                           I. MOLLER7J.J. DE AGUSTIN3                   C. MORAGUES7E. DE MIGUEL4                         E. NAREDO8 A. IAGNOCCO5                           F. SALAFFI1                                                               *The first two authors contributed equally to the study.1Cattedra di Reumatologia, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy; 2Department of Rheumatology, Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, UK; 3Hospital Vall d´Hebron, Barcelona, Spain; 4Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain; 5Università La Sapienza, Rome, Italy; 6Hospital de Valme, Seville, Spain; 7Instituto Poal, Barcelona, Spain; 8Hospital  de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain; 9Hospital Severo Ochoa, Madrid, Spain.Please address correspondence to: Dr. Emilio Filippucci, Clinica Reumatologica, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ospedale “Murri”, Via dei Colli 52, 60035 Jesi (AN), Italy.E-mail: emilio_filippucci@yahoo.itReferences  1. FILIPPUCCI E, IAGNOCCO A, MEENAGH G et al.: Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006; 24: 1-5.   2. DOWNEY DB, FENSTER A, WILLIAMS JC: Clini-cal utility of three-dimensional US. Radiographics 2000; 20: 559-71.  3. THE DELPHI METHOD: Techniques and Applications. Edited by Murray Turoff and Harold A. Linstone. 2002; 109.TableAnatomical target Mean Standard deviation Median Longitudinal dorsal scan 5.75 0.34 6 Bone profile 5.55 0.42 5.5 Extensor tendon 5.55 0.52 5.75 Articular cartilage 5.5 0.45 5.5 Total 5.59 0.08 5.6

Level of agreement between rheumatologists on US image acquisition using a 3D volumetric probe

https://iris.unito.it/bitstream/2318/1613172/1/159.pdf

Level of agreement between rheumatologists on US image acquisition using a 3D volumetric probe

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Institutional Research Information System University of Turin