Rheumatoid Arthritis: Samjee I

Anonymous00075, Devauchelle-Pensec V, Josseaume T, Samjee I, Dougados M, Combe B, Saraux A. · Brest Teaching Hospitals, Brest, France. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #19035426 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess the usefulness of using oblique foot radiographs in addition to posteroanterior radiographs of the hands and feet for detecting erosions in patients with recent-onset arthritis. METHODS: We included 813 patients from the prospective French ESPOIR cohort with arthritis of <6 months' duration and >or=2 swollen joints. Baseline standardized posteroanterior radiographs of the hands and feet and oblique radiographs of the feet were assessed by 2 blinded readers for erosions typical for rheumatoid arthritis (ETRA) and the Sharp score as modified by van der Heijde. RESULTS: A total of 715 complete sets were available. Mean +/- SD total Sharp scores were 3.6 +/- 6.6, 2.5 +/- 6.3, and 1.8 +/- 5 for the hand and wrist, foot, and oblique foot, respectively. ETRA were visible in 160 (22.4%) of 715 patients (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 19.4-25.6). They were seen on hand radiographs in 86 (53.7%) of 160 patients (95% CI 45.7-61.6), on posteroanterior foot radiographs in 91 (56.9%) of 160 patients (95% CI 48.8-64.6), and on oblique foot radiographs in 84 (52.5%) of 160 patients (95% CI 44.5-60.4). ETRA were visible at the feet, but not at the hands, in 74 (46%) of 160 patients (95% CI 38.4-54.3), among whom 22 (30%) had erosions only on the posteroanterior view, 16 (21%) only on the oblique view, and 36 (48.6%) on both. CONCLUSION: ETRA were found in 22.4% of patients. Adding an oblique foot radiograph identified 16 (10%) of 160 additional patients (95% CI 6-16), compared with 27.5% and 13.8% identified by adding posteroanterior radiographs of the hands and feet, respectively.

Guennoc X, Samjee I, Jousse-Joulin S, Devauchelle V, Roudaut A, Saraux A. · Rheumatology Department, Brest Teaching Hospital, CHU de Brest, 29609 Brest, France. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #17574895 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of patient information about fluoroscopy-guided rheumatologic procedures, and to look for an impact on the patient's experience of the procedure. METHODS: One hundred and nineteen patients completed questionnaires before and after undergoing fluoroscopy-guided interventions. We looked for associations between the information supplied by the rheumatologist who recommended the procedure and pain, anxiety, awareness of potential complications, and the match between patient expectations and actual experience. RESULTS: 62.8% of patients reported receiving information about the procedure. Only 20.5% reported receiving specific information about potential adverse events, although 80.9% felt this information would have been useful. Most patients (74.8%) would have liked to receive additional information. Only 10.1% patients were given written information. Mean (+/-SD) anticipated pain severity as assessed in the waiting room before the procedure on a 0-10 scale was 4.5+/-2.4 in women and 4.2+/-2.3) in men. Actual pain severity during the procedure as assessed on the same scale was 2.7+/-2.6 in women and 2.2+/-1.6 in men. The level of information about the procedure did not influence anticipated or actual pain severity. Anxiety was reported by 59.8% patients and was more common in women (P<0.001), in patients given written information (P=0.05), and in patients undergoing their first intervention (P=0.05). Information was perceived as alleviating anxiety by 69.9% patients, and 77.3% of patients felt they would experience less anxiety if they had the procedure a second time. Only 21.2% patients were able to name a potential adverse event, and this proportion was not influenced by receiving written information. A mismatch between expectations about the procedure or its duration and actual experience was reported by 17 (17/69, 24.6%) and 34 (34/98, 34.7%) patients, respectively, with no significant differences across study subgroups. CONCLUSION: Information about interventional rheumatology procedures is required for ethical principles and legislation. Patients increasingly expect detailed information, which may increase the likelihood that the procedure unfolds smoothly. Our results indicate a need for optimizing patient information. Standardized written material deserves to be evaluated as a means of better meeting the informational needs of patients.

Devauchelle-Pensec V, Berthelot JM, Jousse S, Samjee I, Josseaume T, Colin D, Chalés G, Thorel JB, Hoang S, Martin A, Youinou P, Le Goff P, Saraux A. · Unit of Rheumatology, Cavale Blanche Hospital, CHU Brest, Brest, France. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16783864 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of baseline hand radiographs to predict the diagnosis 2 years later in a cohort of patients with early arthritis. METHODS: A total of 258 patients with arthritis onset within the previous year were evaluated. At baseline, all patients underwent a standardized evaluation including laboratory tests and radiographs. Hand radiographs were read by a blinded observer who used a standardized procedure for detecting features of crystal deposition diseases and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). After 30 +/- 11.3 months, the final diagnosis was established by a panel of rheumatologists. All radiographs were evaluated. RESULTS: Significant associations were found between radiographic features and a clinical diagnosis of RA, calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate (CPPD) arthritis, and hydroxyapatite arthritis. No radiographic abnormalities suggesting psoriatic arthritis or gout were seen. The sensitivities of hand radiographs for diagnosing CPPD or hydroxyapatite arthritis ranged from 80% to 100%. Baseline hand radiographs suggested the final diagnosis in 31/258 patients, including 21 (22.5%) of the 93 patients with RA, 10 of the 11 (91%) patients with CPPD or hydroxyapatite deposition disease, and none of the patients with other disorders. Sensitivity was 29%, specificity 86.5%, positive predictive value 61%, and negative predictive value 63%. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of patients with recent arthritis, the overall performance of hand radiographs in predicting a diagnosis 2 years later was modest. However, they had an excellent diagnostic value for calcium deposition diseases.