Course of radiographic damage over 10 years in a cohort with early rheumatoid arthritis

E Lindqvist, K Jonsson, T Saxne, K Eberhardt, E Lindqvist, K Jonsson, T Saxne, K Eberhardt

Abstract

Objective: To investigate development of radiographic damage in hands and feet of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) monitored prospectively for 10 years, and to search for prognostic factors.

Patients and methods: 181 patients with early RA (mean disease duration one year) were assessed annually with radiographs of hands and feet during years 0-5 and at year 10. Radiographs were evaluated according to Larsen (range 0-200). Predictive factors for progressive disease for years 0-5 and 5-10 were evaluated by logistic regression analyses.

Results: 82/168 (49%) patients had erosions at inclusion and almost all became erosive with time (90% after two years and 96% after 10 years). Radiographic progression was most rapid during the first two years and 75% of all damage occurred during the first five years. The median Larsen score increased from 6 at inclusion to 41 after five years and 54 after 10 years. Only 5.3% of all evaluated joints became maximally eroded, the second metacarpophalangeal joint being the most commonly affected. Mean ESR during the first three months and rheumatoid factor status were significant predictors for radiographic progressive disease, it was not possible to predict non-progressive disease.

Conclusions: Joint damage in hands and feet developed early and progression was most rapid during the first years of disease. The different rates of progression at different stages should be considered in the design of trials of drugs aimed at retarding joint damage. Disease activity at study start influenced the degree of joint damage during the entire 10 years.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The Larsen scores at each year. The box plots show the median and 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th centiles. All changes in Larsen scores were highly significant (p

Figure 2

Progression rates of radiographic damage…

Figure 2

Progression rates of radiographic damage for each year during the first five years…

Figure 2
Progression rates of radiographic damage for each year during the first five years and from year 5–10. The box plots show the median and 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th centiles.

Figure 3

Percentage of examined joints with…

Figure 3

Percentage of examined joints with erosive changes (Larsen 2–5).

Figure 3
Percentage of examined joints with erosive changes (Larsen 2–5).

Figure 4

Number of patients with at…

Figure 4

Number of patients with at least one joint with maximal Larsen score (5).

Figure 4
Number of patients with at least one joint with maximal Larsen score (5).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Progression rates of radiographic damage for each year during the first five years and from year 5–10. The box plots show the median and 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th centiles.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Percentage of examined joints with erosive changes (Larsen 2–5).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Number of patients with at least one joint with maximal Larsen score (5).

References

    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2000 Sep;43(9):1927-40
    1. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000 Jul;39(7):732-41
    1. J Rheumatol. 2001 Apr;28(4):914-7
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Sep;44(9):2009-17
    1. J Rheumatol. 2001 Dec;28(12):2608-15
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Apr;46(4):913-20
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Apr 15;47(2):215-8
    1. J Rheumatol. 1999 Mar;26(3):743-5
    1. J Rheumatol. 1999 Mar;26(3):749-51
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Sep;42(9):1854-60
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1991 Jun;34(6):660-8
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Jun;46(6):1443-50
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002 Dec;61(12):1055-9
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1977 Feb;36(1):71-3
    1. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1977 Jul;18(4):481-91
    1. Scand J Rheumatol. 1982;11(2):97-100
    1. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 1985 Jan-Mar;3(1):29-37
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1985 Dec;28(12):1326-35
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1986 May;45(5):373-8
    1. Scand J Rheumatol. 1988;17(4):263-71
    1. Lancet. 1989 May 13;1(8646):1036-8
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1990 May;49(5):286-9
    1. Rheumatol Int. 1990;10(4):135-42
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1992 Jan;35(1):26-34
    1. Br J Rheumatol. 1992 Aug;31(8):519-25
    1. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1992;95:3-8
    1. Br J Rheumatol. 1993 Aug;32(8):717-23
    1. J Rheumatol. 1995 Jun;22(6):1048-54
    1. J Rheumatol. 1995 Sep;22(9):1792-6
    1. J Rheumatol. 1995 Oct;22(10):1983-9
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1996 Jan;55(1):34-9
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1996 Jun;39(6):996-1005
    1. Br J Rheumatol. 1996 Nov;35(11):1106-15
    1. J Rheumatol. 1997 Jul;24(7):1285-7
    1. J Rheumatol. 1998 Mar;25(3):417-26
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1998 Aug;41(8):1470-80
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1998 Sep;41(9):1571-82
    1. J Rheumatol. 1999 Feb;26(2):268-76
    1. J Rheumatol. 1999 Feb;26(2):481-3
    1. J Rheumatol. 1999 Mar;26(3):726-30
    1. J Rheumatol. 1999 Mar;26(3):731-9
    1. Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999 Dec;38(12):1213-20
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2000 Mar;43(3):495-505
    1. N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1594-602

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir