4.7 Article

MRI in early rheumatoid arthritis: synovitis and bone marrow oedema are independent predictors of subsequent radiographic progression

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 70, 期 3, 页码 428-433

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2009.123950

关键词

-

资金

  1. Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority
  2. Research Council of Norway
  3. Norwegian Rheumatism Association
  4. Norwegian Women Public Health Association
  5. Grethe Harbitz Legacy
  6. Marie and Else Mustad's Legacy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To determine whether MRI and conventional (clinical and laboratory) measures of inflammation can predict 3-year radiographic changes measured by the van der Heijde Sharp score in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods 55 patients with RA with disease duration <1 year participated in this 3-year follow-up study. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 36 months by swollen and tender joint count, disease activity score based on 28-joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C reactive protein, MRI measures of synovitis, bone marrow oedema and tenosynovitis of the dominant wrist, as well as conventional x-rays of the hands and wrists. Results All measures of inflammation decreased during the follow-up period. ESR, MRI synovitis and MRI bone marrow oedema were independent predictors of 3-year radiographic progression adjusted for age, sex and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies. The 1-year cumulative measures of MRI synovitis and bone marrow oedema provided an improved explanation of variation (adjusted R-2) in radiographic change compared with the baseline MRI values (adjusted R-2 = 0.32 and 0.20 vs 0.11 and 0.04, respectively). Conclusions Both baseline and 1-year cumulative measures of MRI synovitis and bone marrow oedema independently predicted 3-year radiographic progression. These results confirm that MRI synovitis and MRI bone marrow oedema precede radiographic progression in patients with early RA.

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