4.7 Article

Prognostic laboratory markers of joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 64, 期 2, 页码 196-201

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2003.019992

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate whether determination of a set of laboratory markers at baseline provides prognostic information on joint damage in hands and feet in rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: 183 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis included in a prospective study were examined. Radiographic changes in hands and feet at 5 and 10 years after inclusion were evaluated (Larsen). The markers analysed were: erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR); HLA-DRB alleles typed by restriction fragment length polymorphism; and C reactive protein, cartilage oligomeric matrix protein ( COMP), rheumatoid factor (RF) (IgG, IgA, and IgM subtypes), antibodies against cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), and antibodies against interleukin 1alpha (anti-IL1alpha), analysed by immunoassays. Multiple linear regression with backward elimination was used to determine the prognostic value of the variables. Results: 117/176 patients were positive for IgG RF, 138/176 for IgA RF, 139/176 for IgM RF, 140/176 for anti-CCP, and 40/182 for anti-IL1alpha. After five years, ESR, the presence of IgA RF, serum COMP, and the presence of anti-CCP were significantly associated with more severe joint damage, and the presence of anti-IL1alpha with less severe joint damage. Baseline C reactive protein and anti-CCP predicted radiographic outcome after 10 years. A stronger prediction was obtained by combining the prognostic factors. Conclusions: Early determination of anti-CCP, IgA RF, anti-IL-1alpha, ESR, C reactive protein, and COMP predicted the development of joint damage in hands and feet in this cohort. A combination of these measures reflecting different aspects of the disease process should be useful for evaluating prognosis in individual patients with early rheumatoid 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