You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 68, Issue 10
  • Monitoring anti-TNFα treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: responsiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography of the dominant wrist joint compared with conventional measures of disease activity and structural damage

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Clinical and epidemiological research
Extended report
Monitoring anti-TNFα treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: responsiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography of the dominant wrist joint compared with conventional measures of disease activity and structural damage
  1. E A Haavardsholm1,2,
  2. M Østergaard3,
  3. H B Hammer1,
  4. P Bøyesen1,2,
  5. A Boonen4,
  6. D van der Heijde1,5,
  7. T K Kvien1,2
  1. 1
    Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  2. 2
    Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway
  3. 3
    Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospitals at Hvidovre and Herlev, Copenhagen, Denmark
  4. 4
    Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  5. 5
    Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr E A Haavardsholm, Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Box 23 Vinderen, N-0319 Oslo, Norway; e.a.haavardsholm{at}medisin.uio.no

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the responsiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) compared with conventional measures of disease activity and structural damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) during the first year of treatment with anti-tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα).

Methods: A cohort of patients with RA (N = 36, median age 53 years, disease duration 7.6 years and disease activity score (DAS28) 5.7) was evaluated by core measures of disease activity, US (one wrist), MRI (one wrist) and conventional radiography (CR, both hands and wrists) at initiation of treatment with anti-TNFα agents and after 3, 6 and 12 months. Responsiveness was assessed by standardised response means (SRM). Accepted thresholds were applied to classify responsiveness as trivial, low, moderate or good.

Results: MRI synovitis (SRM between −0.79 and −0.92) and the MRI total inflammation score comprising synovitis, tenosynovitis and bone marrow oedema (SRM between −1.05 and −1.24) were highly responsive. Moderate to high responsiveness was found for MRI tenosynovitis and bone marrow oedema, all the composite indices (DAS28, simplified disease activity index (SDAI) and clinical disease activity index (CDAI)) and the 28-swollen joint count. US displayed low to moderate responsiveness. The MRI erosion score displayed low responsiveness but was more responsive than CR measures at 3 and 6 months follow-up. MRI and CR measures of annual progression rates of damage performed similarly and were highly responsive.

Conclusions: The most responsive measure of inflammation when evaluating anti-TNFα medication was a composite measure comprising MRI synovitis, tenosynovitis and bone marrow oedema, and this may be a promising outcome measure in clinical studies.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.091801

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding This study was supported in part by grants from The Research Council of Norway, The Norwegian Rheumatism Association, The Norwegian Women Public Health Association, Grethe Harbitz Legacy and Marie and Else Mustad’s Legacy.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval The study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients gave written informed consent before participation in the study. The regional ethics committee evaluated the study, the storage of data was licensed from the Norwegian data inspectorate and approval for the collection of biological material was obtained from the Department of Health.