4.7 Article

Identification of a distinct imaging phenotype may improve the management of palindromic rheumatism

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 78, 期 1, 页码 43-50

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214175

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Clinical Research Facility
  2. Arthritis Research UK (ARUK) [7174]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To use high-resolution imaging to characterise palindromic rheumatism (PR) and to compare the imaging pattern observed to that seen in new-onset rheumatoid arthritis (NORA). Methods Ultrasound (US) assessment of synovitis, tenosynovitis and non-synovial extracapsular inflammation (ECI) was performed during and between flares in a prospective treatment-naive PR cohort. MRI of the flaring region was performed where possible. For comparison, the same US assessment was also performed in anticyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) positive individuals with musculoskeletal symptoms (CCP+ at risk) and patients with NORA. Results Thirty-one of 79 patients with PR recruited were assessed during a flare. A high frequency of ECI was identified on US; 19/31 (61%) of patients had ECI including 12/19 (63%) in whom ECI was identified in the absence of synovitis. Only 7/31 (23%) patients with PR had synovitis (greyscale >= 1 and power Doppler >= 1) during flare. In the hands/wrists, ECI was more prevalent in PR compared with NORA and CCP+ at risk (65% vs 29 % vs 6%, p<0.05). Furthermore, ECI without synovitis was specific for PR (42% PR vs 4% NORA (p=0.003) and 6% CCP+ at risk (p=0.0012)). Eleven PR flares were captured by MRI, which was more sensitive than US for synovitis and ECI. 8/31 (26%) patients with PR developed RA and had a similar US phenotype to NORA at progression. Conclusion PR has a distinct US pattern characterised by reversible ECI, often without synovitis. In patients presenting with new joint swelling, US may refine management by distinguishing relapsing from persistent arthritis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据