Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
714 result(s) for "Hand Joints - diagnostic imaging"
Sort by:
EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in the clinical management of peripheral joint osteoarthritis
The increased information provided by modern imaging has led to its more extensive use. Our aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of imaging in the clinical management of the most common arthropathy, osteoarthritis (OA). A task force (including rheumatologists, radiologists, methodologists, primary care doctors and patients) from nine countries defined 10 questions on the role of imaging in OA to support a systematic literature review (SLR). Joints of interest were the knee, hip, hand and foot; imaging modalities included conventional radiography (CR), MRI, ultrasonography, CT and nuclear medicine. PubMed and EMBASE were searched. The evidence was presented to the task force who subsequently developed the recommendations. The strength of agreement for each recommendation was assessed. 17 011 references were identified from which 390 studies were included in the SLR. Seven recommendations were produced, covering the lack of need for diagnostic imaging in patients with typical symptoms; the role of imaging in differential diagnosis; the lack of benefit in monitoring when no therapeutic modification is related, though consideration is required when unexpected clinical deterioration occurs; CR as the first-choice imaging modality; consideration of how to correctly acquire images and the role of imaging in guiding local injections. Recommendations for future research were also developed based on gaps in evidence, such as the use of imaging in identifying therapeutic targets, and demonstrating the added value of imaging. These evidence-based recommendations and related research agenda provide the basis for sensible use of imaging in routine clinical assessment of people with OA.
Diagnostic delay of more than 6 months contributes to poor radiographic and functional outcome in psoriatic arthritis
(1) To investigate the demographic and clinical characteristics contributing to the delay from symptom onset to the first visit to a rheumatologist; (2) to compare clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures of those who saw a rheumatologist early in their disease course with those who were diagnosed later. All psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients, fulfilling CASPAR criteria, with an average disease duration of >10 years were invited for detailed clinical evaluation. The total lag time from symptom onset to their first rheumatological encounter was studied. The data were extracted from the referral letters and medical records. Patients were classified as early consulters or late consulters depending on whether they were seen by a rheumatologist within or beyond 6 months of symptom onset. 283 PsA patients were studied. Median lag time from the disease onset to the first rheumatological assessment of the cohort was 1.00 years (IQR 0.5-2). 30% (n=86), 53% (n=149) and 71% (n=202) of the cohort were seen by a rheumatologist within 6 months, 1 and 2 years of symptom onset, respectively. PsA patients with low education status (OR 2.09, p=0.02) and Body Mass Index (OR 0.92, p=0.01) were significantly more likely to have a diagnostic delay of >2 years. On multiple stepwise regression analysis, the model predicted significant association of late consulters with the development of peripheral joint erosions (OR 4.25, p=0.001) and worse Health Assessment Questionnaire scores (OR 2.2, p=0.004). Even a 6-month delay from symptom onset to the first visit with a rheumatologist contributes to the development of peripheral joint erosions and worse long-term physical function.
Dual-energy CT for the diagnosis of gout: an accuracy and diagnostic yield study
Objectives To assess the accuracy of dual-energy CT (DECT) for diagnosing gout, and to explore whether it can have any impact on clinical decision making beyond the established diagnostic approach using polarising microscopy of synovial fluid (diagnostic yield). Methods Diagnostic single-centre study of 40 patients with active gout, and 41 individuals with other types of joint disease. Sensitivity and specificity of DECT for diagnosing gout was calculated against a combined reference standard (polarising and electron microscopy of synovial fluid). To explore the diagnostic yield of DECT scanning, a third cohort was assembled consisting of patients with inflammatory arthritis and risk factors for gout who had negative synovial fluid polarising microscopy results. Among these patients, the proportion of subjects with DECT findings indicating a diagnosis of gout was assessed. Results The sensitivity and specificity of DECT for diagnosing gout was 0.90 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.97) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.93), respectively. All false negative patients were observed among patients with acute, recent-onset gout. All false positive patients had advanced knee osteoarthritis. DECT in the diagnostic yield cohort revealed evidence of uric acid deposition in 14 out of 30 patients (46.7%). Conclusions DECT provides good diagnostic accuracy for detection of monosodium urate (MSU) deposits in patients with gout. However, sensitivity is lower in patients with recent-onset disease. DECT has a significant impact on clinical decision making when gout is suspected, but polarising microscopy of synovial fluid fails to demonstrate the presence of MSU crystals.
Ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy: a safe, well-tolerated and reliable technique for obtaining high-quality synovial tissue from both large and small joints in early arthritis patients
To determine the tolerability, safety and yield of synovial tissue in an early arthritis cohort using a minimally invasive, ultrasound (US)-guided, synovial biopsy technique in small, medium and large joints. 93 sequential biopsy procedures were assessed from a total of 57 patients (baseline and 36 repeat biopsies at 6 months) recruited as part of the 'Pathobiology of Early Arthritis Cohort' study. Patients completed a tolerability questionnaire prior to and following the synovial biopsy procedure. The synovial biopsy was performed under US guidance with US images of the joint recorded prior to each procedure. Synovial tissue was harvested for immunohistochemistry and RNA extraction. Five different joint sites were biopsied (knee, elbow, wrist, metacarpal phalangeal and proximal interphalangeal). No significant complications were reported following the procedure. No difference in pain, swelling and stiffness of the biopsied joint from before and after the procedure was demonstrated. A median of 14 biopsy samples was retrieved from each procedure with 93% of biopsy procedures yielding good quality tissue. RNA yield was good in all joints and in repeat biopsies. Multivariant analysis demonstrated a significantly greater yield of RNA and graded tissue in relation to a high prebiopsy, grey-scale synovitis score (0-3, semiquantitative). A minimally invasive approach to synovial tissue harvesting, using US guidance, is both safe and well-tolerated by patients. Tissue quality/RNA yield is preserved in subsequent biopsies following therapeutic intervention. A high US grey-scale synovitis score is a predictor of good quality/quantity of tissue and RNA.
The specificity of ultrasound-detected bone erosions for rheumatoid arthritis
Background Bone erosion is one of the hallmarks of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but also seen in other rheumatic diseases. The objective of this study was to determine the specificity of ultrasound (US)-detected bone erosions (including their size) in the classical ‘target’ joints for RA. Methods Patients fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for RA, psoriatic arthritis, osteoarthritis or gout in addition to healthy volunteers were included. The following areas were examined by US: distal radius and ulna, 2nd, 3rd and 5th metacarpophalangeal (MCP), 2nd and 3rd proximal interphalangeal (PIP) and 1st and 5th metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints. All joints were scanned in four quadrants using both semiquantitative (0–3) and quantitative (erosion diameter) scoring systems. Results 310 subjects were recruited. The inter-reader and intrareader agreements were good to excellent. US-detected bone erosions were more frequent but not specific for RA (specificity 32.9% and sensitivity 91.4%). The presence of erosions with semiquantitative score ≥2 in four target joints (2nd, 5rd MCP, 5th MTP joints and distal ulna) was highly specific for RA (specificity 97.9% and sensitivity 41.4%). Size of erosion was found to be associated with RA. Erosions of any size in the 5th MTP joint were both specific and sensitive for RA (specificity 85.4% and sensitivity 68.6%). Conclusions The presence of US-detected erosions is not specific for RA. However, larger erosions in selected joints, especially 2nd and 5rd MCP, 5th MTP joints and distal ulna, were highly specific for and predictive of RA.
Phase IIa, placebo-controlled, randomised study of lutikizumab, an anti-interleukin-1α and anti-interleukin-1β dual variable domain immunoglobulin, in patients with erosive hand osteoarthritis
ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the anti-interleukin (IL)-1α/β dual variable domain immunoglobulin lutikizumab (ABT-981) in erosive hand osteoarthritis (HOA).MethodsPatients with ≥1 erosive and ≥3 tender and/or swollen hand joints were randomised to placebo or lutikizumab 200 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) pain subdomain score from baseline to 16 weeks. At baseline and week 26, subjects had bilateral hand radiographs and MRI of the hand with the greatest number of baseline tender and/or swollen joints. Continuous endpoints were assessed using analysis of covariance models, with treatment and country as main factors and baseline measurements as covariates.ResultsOf 132 randomised subjects, 1 received no study drug and 110 completed the study (placebo, 61/67 (91%); lutikizumab, 49/64 (77%)). AUSCAN pain was not different among subjects treated with lutikizumab versus placebo at week 16 (least squares mean difference, 1.5 (95% CI –1.9 to 5.0)). Other clinical and imaging endpoints were not different between lutikizumab and placebo. Lutikizumab significantly decreased serum high-sensitivity C reactive protein levels, IL-1α and IL-1β levels, and blood neutrophils. Lutikizumab pharmacokinetics were consistent with phase I studies and not affected by antidrug antibodies. Injection site reactions and neutropaenia were more common in the lutikizumab group; discontinuations because of adverse events occurred more frequently with lutikizumab (4/64) versus placebo (1/67).ConclusionDespite adequate blockade of IL-1, lutikizumab did not improve pain or imaging outcomes in erosive HOA compared with placebo.
2023 EULAR classification criteria for hand osteoarthritis
ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to develop classification criteria for overall hand osteoarthritis (OA), interphalangeal OA and thumb base OA based on self-reported data and radiographic features.MethodsThe classification criteria sets were developed in three phases. In phase 1, we identified criteria that discriminated hand OA from controls. In phase 2, we used a consensus-based decision analysis approach to derive a clinician-based evaluation of the relative importance of the criteria. In phase 3, we refined the scoring system, determined the cut-offs for disease classification and compared the sensitivity and specificity of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) criteria with the 1990 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria.ResultsIn persons with hand symptoms and no other disease (including psoriasis) or acute injury that can explain the hand symptoms (mandatory criteria), hand OA can be classified based on age, duration of morning stiffness, number of joints with osteophytes and joint space narrowing, and concordance between symptoms and radiographic findings. Using a sum of scores based on each diagnostic element, overall hand OA can be classified if a person achieves 9 or more points on a 0–15 scale. The cut-off for interphalangeal OA and thumb base OA is 8 points. While the EULAR criteria demonstrated better sensitivity than the ACR criteria in the phase 1 data set, the performance of the two criteria sets was similar in two external cohorts.ConclusionsInternational experts developed the EULAR criteria to classify overall hand OA, interphalangeal OA and thumb base OA in clinical studies using a rigorous methodology.
Patients with seronegative RA have more inflammatory activity compared with patients with seropositive RA in an inception cohort of DMARD-naïve patients classified according to the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria
ObjectivesTo compare the presentation of seropositive and seronegative early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients classified according to the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria.MethodsAll patients had symptom duration from first swollen joint <2 years and were DMARD naïve with an indication for DMARD treatment. Patients were stratified as seropositive (positive rheumatoid factor (RF)+ and/or anticitrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA)+) or seronegative (RF− and ACPA−), and disease characteristics were compared between groups.ResultsA total of 234 patients were included, and 36 (15.4%) were seronegative. Ultrasonography (US) scores for joints (median 55 vs 25, p<0.001) and tendons (median 3 vs 0, p<0.001), number of swollen joints (median 17 vs 8, p<0.001), disease activity score (DAS; mean 3.9 vs 3.4, p=0.03) and physician global assessment (mean 49.1 vs 38.9, p=0.006) were significantly higher in seronegative patients compared with seropositive. Total van der Heijde-modified Sharp score, Richie Articular Index and patient-reported outcome measures were similar between groups.ConclusionsSeronegative patients had higher levels of inflammation, assessed both clinically and by US, than seropositive patients. These differences may reflect the high number of involved joints required for seronegative patients to fulfil the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for RA.Trial registration numberNCT01205854; Pre-results.
The predictive role of ultrasound-detected tenosynovitis and joint synovitis for flare in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in stable remission. Results of an Italian multicentre study of the Italian Society for Rheumatology Group for Ultrasound: the STARTER study
ObjectiveTo define the role of ultrasound (US) for the assessment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical remission, including joint and tendon evaluation.MethodsA multicentre longitudinal study has been promoted by the US Study Group of the Italian Society for Rheumatology. 25 Italian centres participated, enrolling consecutive patients with RA in clinical remission. All patients underwent complete clinical assessment (demographic data, disease characteristics, laboratory exams, clinical assessment of 28 joints and patient/physician-reported outcomes) and Power Doppler (PD) US evaluation of wrist, metacarpalphalangeal joints, proximal interphalangeal joints and synovial tendons of the hands and wrists at enrolment, 6 and 12 months. The association between clinical and US variables with flare, disability and radiographic progression was evaluated by univariable and adjusted logistic regression models.Results361 patients were enrolled, the mean age was 56.20 (±13.31) years and 261 were women, with a mean disease duration of 9.75 (±8.07) years. In the 12 months follow-up, 98/326 (30.1%) patients presented a disease flare. The concurrent presence of PD positive tenosynovitis and joint synovitis predicted disease flare, with an OR (95% CI) of 2.75 (1.45 to 5.20) in crude analyses and 2.09 (1.06 to 4.13) in adjusted analyses. US variables did not predict the worsening of function or radiographic progression. US was able to predict flare at 12 months but not at 6 months.ConclusionsPD positivity in tendons and joints is an independent risk factor of flare in patients with RA in clinical remission. Musculoskeletal ultrasound evaluation is a valuable tool to monitor and help decision making in patients with RA in clinical remission.