Rheumatoid Arthritis: Mary JY

Saraux A, Berthelot JM, Chalès G, Le Henaff C, Mary JY, Thorel JB, Hoang S, Dueymes M, Allain J, Devauchelle V, Baron D, Le Goff P, Youinou P. · Rheumatology Unit, Hôpital de la Cavale Blanche, Brest, France. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #11954009 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine which laboratory test or tests at presentation best predicted a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) 2 years later. METHODS: Two hundred seventy patients with early arthritis seen in 7 hospitals underwent comprehensive evaluations at 6-month intervals for 2 years, when the diagnosis of RA was assessed by 5 rheumatologists. The sensitivity and specificity of each test at the first visit for discriminating between RA (38%, n = 98) and non-RA patients were determined. Optimal cutoffs for continuous tests were derived from receiver operating characteristic curves. Sensitivity and specificity of test combinations selected by multiple logistic regression were determined. RESULTS: IgM rheumatoid factor (RF) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, IgG-antikeratin antibody (AKA), and latex test had the strongest associations with RA. These 3 tests formed the most powerful combination for distinguishing RA from non-RA. CONCLUSION: IgM-RF, IgG-AKA, and the latex test are the best laboratory tests for discriminating between patients with and without RA. Combining these tests slightly improves diagnostic value.

Saraux A, Berthelot JM, Chalès G, Le Henaff C, Thorel JB, Hoang S, Valls I, Devauchelle V, Martin A, Baron D, Pennec Y, Botton E, Mary JY, Le Goff P, Youinou P. · Rheumatology Unit, la Cavale Blanche Hospital, Brest Teaching Hospital, France. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #11710704 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine how well the American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly, the American Rheumatism Association) 1987 classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), when used at study inclusion in a cohort of 270 patients with early (<1 year) arthritis, predicted a diagnosis of RA 2 years later and how well they classified these patients at the end of the 2 years. METHODS: Patients were evaluated during 1995-1997 at 7 hospitals in the Brittany region of France. Patients were evaluated at 6-month intervals until November 1999. The diagnosis made by a panel of 5 rheumatologists (P5R) after the last visit was used as the "gold standard." The ACR 1987 criteria for RA were applied prospectively, without taking into account the initial diagnosis. RESULTS: At the last visit (mean +/- SD followup 29.1 +/- 11.8 months; median 30 months), the P5R diagnosed RA in 98 patients. At the last visit, classification by the ACR criteria was satisfactory, and the combination of an office-based rheumatologist's (OBR's) diagnosis of RA and fulfillment of the ACR criteria was sensitive (87%; 85 of 98 RA patients had both) and highly specific (99%; 170 of 172 non-RA patients did not have both). Application of the criteria at the first visit was of limited value for predicting a diagnosis of RA 2 years later. CONCLUSION: After a 2-year followup, the ACR 1987 classification criteria used in combination with an OBR's diagnosis were effective in distinguishing patients with and without RA. The criteria were not useful for predicting RA in patients with arthritis onset within the previous year. Some patients who met the criteria at baseline and after 2 years did not have RA, suggesting that incorporating exclusion criteria may improve the performance of the ACR criteria when used without taking into account the diagnosis by a rheumatologist, particularly in early arthritis.