Objective Early identification of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is essential to allow the prompt institution of therapy. The 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) classification criteria, which replace the 1987 classification criteria, have been developed to facilitate such identification in patients with newly presenting inflammatory arthritis. This study therefore assesses the performance of these new criteria in patients with early synovitis.
Methods Data were analysed from patients with synovitis seen within 3 months of the onset of inflammatory arthritis. Patients were followed for 18 months to determine outcomes, and data on the cumulative fulfilment of 2010 and 1987 criteria and therapy were recorded.
Results 265 patients were included in the study. 60 had alternative diagnoses at baseline. Of the remaining 205 patients, 20% fulfilled both 1987 and 2010 criteria, 3% fulfilled only 1987 criteria and 22% fulfilled only 2010 criteria at baseline. The 2010 criteria, when applied at baseline, detected more patients who eventually required disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) (65 (62%) vs 40 (38%); p<0.001), especially methotrexate (50 (68%) vs 31 (42%); p<0.01), within the first 18 months. However, more patients whose disease eventually resolved without ever requiring DMARD were classified at baseline as RA according to the 2010 criteria than with the 1987 criteria (16 (8%) vs 5 (2%); p=0.01).
Conclusion The 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria allow more rapid identification of patients requiring methotrexate compared with the 1987 ACR criteria when applied at baseline. However, overdiagnosis is an important issue to consider if these criteria are to be used in very early disease.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding This work has been supported by grants from Arthritis Research UK and the European Community's Sixth Framework Programme (AutoCure).
Competing interests KR, AF and CDB hold unrestricted research grants from Wyeth, UCB and Cellzome.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Birmingham East North and Solihull Research Ethics Committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.