Search

Background Conventional radiographs of hands and feet are used to depict structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This is also commonly done in clinical practice in symptomatic patients at risk for RA (clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA)), but its rationale is unclear. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of radiographic erosive disease in patients with CSA and its progression over time.Methods Patients with symptomatic arthralgia of the Leiden CSA cohort were studied during 2-year follow-up or until development of inflammatory arthritis (IA). Erosive disease was defined according to the radiologist, or according to the RA-specific erosive definition in light of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2010 RA criteria. Serial radiographs were evaluated according to the Sharp van der Heijde Scoring method (SHS) and radiographic erosive progression was determined. Additionally, it was evaluated if baseline erosive disease associated with IA development. Analyses were stratified for anticitrullinated protein antibody status.Results 1497 radiographs of hands and feet of 749 patients with CSA were studied. Median SHS-erosion score at baseline was 0 (IQR 0–1). RA-specific erosive disease was present in 1.7% according to the radiologist, and 2.5% according to the ACR/EULAR criteria. No patients with CSA progressed ≥5 SHS-erosion points during follow-up. Erosive disease at CSA onset was not associated with IA development (HR 0.98 (95% CI 0.40 to 2.44)).Conclusions At CSA onset, radiographic erosive disease is rare. In addition, it is rarely progressive within the CSA phase and not predictive for IA development. Therefore, for clinical practice, routinely made radiographs of hands and feet (such as regularly done at RA diagnosis) can be omitted in the at-risk stage of arthralgia.

Objectives Secondary prevention of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is generally considered potentially impactful because the entire RA population is believed to experience a symptomatic ‘pre-RA’ phase. We wondered whether this dogma is correct. Therefore we investigated an inception cohort of patients with newly diagnosed RA and studied among them patients who did and did not present with preceding arthralgia at risk for RA.Methods Consecutively diagnosed patients with RA between 2012 and 2022 were studied (n=699). These patients had either directly presented with clinically apparent arthritis, or had first presented with clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA). Clinical characteristics at symptom onset and RA diagnosis were compared. Whether certain characteristics frequently occurred together was studied using a K-means algorithm after dimension reduction with partial least squares discriminant analysis. To validate that groups differed in long-term outcomes, sustained disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-free remission (SDFR) of the groups was studied during a median follow-up of 5.3 years.Results Patients with RA who had first presented with CSA were younger, more often had a gradual symptom onset and were more often anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA)-positive. Studying characteristics at symptom onset and RA diagnosis revealed four patient clusters, of which two clusters included almost all patients with a preceding CSA phase. Patients in these two clusters (55% of RA population) were younger, had a gradual symptom onset, longer symptom duration and were more frequently ACPA-positive. Patients with RA in these clusters achieved SDFR less often (HR 0.51 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.68)) than the patients with RA in the two clusters where preceding CSA was infrequent/absent.Conclusion These data suggest the notion that the entire RA population has an identifiable symptomatic risk stage should be refuted. This may impact on the scope of preventive interventions targeting the symptomatic risk phase.

Objectives Although joint swelling is traditionally interpreted as synovitis, recent imaging studies showed that there is also inflammation of tenosynovium and intermetatarsal bursae in the forefoot. We aimed to increase our understanding of differences and similarities regarding forefoot involvement between ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at diagnosis. Therefore, we (1) compared metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint counts, walking disabilities and inflamed tissues between ACPA groups and (2) studied associations of joint swelling/tenderness and walking disabilities with underlying inflamed tissues within ACPA groups.Methods 171 ACPA-positive and 203 ACPA-negative consecutively diagnosed patients with RA had a physical joint examination (swollen joint count-66/tender joint count-68), filled a Health Assessment Questionnaire including the domain walking and underwent MRI of the MTP joints at diagnosis. Synovitis, tenosynovitis, osteitis and intermetatarsal bursitis (IMB) were assessed. Findings in age-matched healthy controls were applied to define abnormalities on MRI.Results While ACPA-negative RA patients had more swollen joints (mean SJC 8 vs 6 in ACPA-positives, p=0.003), the number of swollen MTP joints was similar (mean 1 in both groups); walking disabilities were also equally common (49% vs 53%). In contrast, inflamed tissues were all more prevalent in ACPA-positive compared with ACPA-negative RA. Within ACPA-positive RA, IMB was associated independently with MTP-joint swelling (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 5.0) and tenderness (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.8 to 5.0). While in ACPA-negatives, synovitis was associated independently with MTP-joint swelling (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 5.8) and tenderness (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.8). Tenosynovitis contributed most to walking disabilities.Conclusions Although the forefoot of ACPA-positives and ACPA-negatives share clinical similarities at diagnosis, there are differences in underlying inflamed tissues. This reinforces that ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative RA are different entities.

Objectives Obesity is a known risk factor for developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, it is unclear whether obesity exerts its risk effect during the asymptomatic or the symptomatic clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA) phase of risk. To improve understanding of the effect of obesity on RA development, we aimed to (1) compare body mass index (BMI) at CSA onset to BMI of the general population and (2) study within CSA patients if obesity increases the risk for progression to RA.Methods 1107 symptomatic persons at risk for RA from four cohorts (CSA Leiden, CSA Rotterdam, SONAR and TREAT EARLIER placebo arm) were studied. For the first aim, baseline BMI was compared with age-matched/sex-matched BMI of the general population. Patients were stratified for anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) status. Regarding the second aim, the association between BMI and inflammatory arthritis (IA) development during 2 years was studied with Cox regression analysis within each cohort and via meta-analysis in all cohorts.Results CSA patients of all cohorts were more often obese than the general population (respectively 21.9% vs 14.0%, 25.7% vs 14.5%, 26.7% vs 14.5% and 33.3% vs 14.9%, in CSA Leiden, CSA Rotterdam, SONAR, TREAT EARLIER placebo arm). Both ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative CSA patients had a higher frequency of obesity. Within CSA, obesity was not associated with IA development compared to normal weight (pooled effect in meta-analysis of four cohorts HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.08)).Conclusions Obesity is not associated with RA development within CSA patients but BMI has already increased in CSA compared to the general population. Obesity, therefore, presumably exerts its risk effect at an early asymptomatic phase of RA development, rather than being associated with the disease processes that ultimately result in clinical arthritis.