Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
  • Log Out
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleOMERACT 11

Determining a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Inflammatory Activity Acceptable State Without Subsequent Radiographic Progression in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from a Followup MRI Study of 254 Patients in Clinical Remission or Low Disease Activity

Frédérique Gandjbakhch, Espen A. Haavardsholm, Philip G. Conaghan, Bo Ejbjerg, Violaine Foltz, Andrew K. Brown, Uffe Møller Døhn, Marissa Lassere, Jane E. Freeston, Inge Christoffer Olsen, Pernille Bøyesen, Paul Bird, Bruno Fautrel, Merete Lund Hetland, Paul Emery, Pierre Bourgeois, Kim Hørslev-Petersen, Tore K. Kvien, Fiona M. McQueen and Mikkel Østergaard
The Journal of Rheumatology February 2014, 41 (2) 398-406; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.131088
Frédérique Gandjbakhch
From the Department of Rheumatology, Pitie Salpetriere Hospital, APHP, Université Paris 6-UPMC, Paris, France; Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds and UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds, UK; Department of Rheumatology, Slagelse Hospital, Slagelse, Denmark; Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK; Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research, Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Glostrup Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; and Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; St. George Hospital, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia; King Christian X’s Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; and Department of Molecular Medicine and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Espen A. Haavardsholm
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: e.a.haavardsholm@medisin.uio.no
Philip G. Conaghan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bo Ejbjerg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Violaine Foltz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew K. Brown
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Uffe Møller Døhn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marissa Lassere
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jane E. Freeston
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Inge Christoffer Olsen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pernille Bøyesen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Bird
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruno Fautrel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Merete Lund Hetland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Emery
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pierre Bourgeois
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kim Hørslev-Petersen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tore K. Kvien
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fiona M. McQueen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mikkel Østergaard
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. To assess the predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected subclinical inflammation for subsequent radiographic progression in a longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical remission or low disease activity (LDA), and to determine cutoffs for an MRI inflammatory activity acceptable state in RA in which radiographic progression rarely occurs.

Methods. Patients with RA in clinical remission [28-joint Disease Activity Score-C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 2.6, n = 185] or LDA state (2.6 ≤ DAS28-CRP < 3.2, n = 69) with longitudinal MRI and radiographic data were included from 5 cohorts (4 international centers). MRI were assessed according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) RA MRI scoring system (RAMRIS). Statistical analyses included an underlying conditional logistic regression model stratified per cohort, with radiographic progression as dependent variable.

Results. A total of 254 patients were included in the multivariate analyses. At baseline, synovitis was observed in 95% and osteitis in 49% of patients. Radiographic progression was observed in 60 patients (24%). RAMRIS synovitis was the only independent predictive factor in multivariate analysis. ROC analysis identified a cutoff value for baseline RAMRIS synovitis score of 5 (maximum possible score 21). Rheumatoid factor (RF) status yielded a significant interaction with synovitis (p value = 0.044). RF-positive patients with a RAMRIS synovitis score of > 5 vs ≤ 5, had an OR of 4.4 (95% CI 1.72–11.4) for radiographic progression.

Conclusion. High MRI synovitis score predicts radiographic progression in patients in clinical remission/LDA. A cutoff point for determining an MRI inflammatory activity acceptable state based on the RAMRIS synovitis score was established. Incorporating MRI in future remission criteria should be considered.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
  • MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
  • REMISSION
  • LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY STATE

Radiographic progression is an important measure of damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and is related to longterm functional impairment1,2,3,4. In patients with active RA, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected synovitis and osteitis (bone marrow edema) are strong predictors of future radiographic progression5,6,7,8,9. According to the recent European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines, clinical remission should be the main goal of therapy in RA, with low disease activity (LDA) being an acceptable alternative in more longstanding/established disease10,11,12,13.

The treatment of RA has advanced considerably over the last decade, especially with the introduction of biologic agents14 and optimization of treatment strategies13,15,16,17,18. However, several studies have shown that radiographic structural progression may still occur despite clinical remission or LDA state19,20,21,22. MRI improves the evaluation of disease activity beyond clinical examination23, and MRI-detected “subclinical inflammation” has been shown to be present in a large proportion of patients in remission or LDA state24,25,26,27. MRI findings in such patients have, based on univariate analyses, been reported to be predictive of future radiographic progression20,25,27. However, further studies, including multivariate analysis of the independent predictive value of different features, are still needed to clarify the association between MRI inflammatory lesions and radiographic progression in RA remission and LDA state. It is not known whether there is a threshold for MRI inflammation, i.e., an MRI inflammatory activity “acceptable state” that discriminates between patients in remission/LDA state with or without risk of radiographic progression.

The objective of the present longitudinal study of patients in clinical remission or LDA, including clinical, biochemical, MRI, and radiographic assessments, was to determine predictive factors for radiographic structural progression. Further, we aimed to determine cutoffs for a putative MRI inflammatory activity “acceptable state” in RA in which radiographic progression will rarely or never occur.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The dataset used in this study has been described in detail in a cross-sectional study27. A brief outline is given below.

Patients

Databases from 5 different cohorts were collected from 4 international centers (Table 1). The inclusion criteria for this combined cohort, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Rheumatoid arthritis Acceptable disease activity State (ORAS) cohort were as follows: patients had to fulfill the ACR 1987 criteria28, be in clinical remission [defined as Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28-C-reactive protein (CRP) < 2.6] or LDA state (defined as 2.6 ≤ DAS28-CRP < 3.2), and have available MRI data at baseline and radiographic data at baseline and followup. Patients could be treated with synthetic and/or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). Clinical data [age, sex, disease duration in years, treatment, tender joint count (TJC28), swollen joint count (SJC28), patient visual analog scale (VAS) global assessment, physician VAS global assessment] and laboratory tests [erythrocyte sedimentation rate, CRP, rheumatoid factor (RF), and anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) antibodies at baseline] were collected. DAS28-CRP, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and proportions of patients in clinical remission and LDA state were calculated for the different composite indices. The previous cross-sectional study including these cohorts described MRI characteristics of the patients with RA in LDA or clinical remission27. Seven patients from the Sydney cohort described in the cross-sectional analyses were not included in the current longitudinal analysis, because of different timepoints for followup and the lack of wrist MRI. All patients from the 5 remaining cohorts with available MRI data at baseline and radiographic data at baseline and followup were included in our present study.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Overview of the individual cohorts.

MRI acquisition and scoring

An overview of MRI acquisition characteristics in the different cohorts is provided in Table 1. MRI of unilateral wrist and/or metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints 2–5 were acquired. Synovitis, erosion, and osteitis were defined and scored semiquantitatively according to the OMERACT RAMRIS system29,30,31,32,33. By adding scores from the individual joint regions, MRI sum scores for synovitis were calculated [(wrist: 0–9/MCP: 0–12/wrist + MCP: 0–21); osteitis: 0–45/0–24/0–69; and bone erosion: 0–150/0–80/0–230]. The sum score of wrist and MCP were used when available (HURRAH, CIMESTRA, LEEDS, LAFRAME cohorts). In one cohort (ERA, n = 23), only wrist MRI evaluation was available. No adjustment for the scores was made.

Radiographic acquisition and scoring

Timepoints, radiographic scoring systems, and anatomical coverage in the different cohorts are summarized in Table 1. All radiographs were scored using Sharp-derived scoring methods: in 4 studies, the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score (SvdH) was used and in 1 study the Genant modified Sharp score was used34,35,36,37. These scoring systems evaluate erosions and joint space narrowing (JSN) separately for hands and feet, and total scores are the sum of erosion and JSN scores. Because the SvdH and the Genant modified Sharp score are comparable in detecting radiographic progression38 and both demonstrate very good intrarater and interrater reliability39, no adjustment for the scores was made for the current analysis.

Statistical analyses

Data were analyzed using SAS software, version 9.3. The 5 cohorts were evaluated for radiographic structural progression after 6 months (HURRAH, CIMESTRA, ERA) or 12 months of followup (LEEDS and LAFRAME). No adjustments were performed to account for the length of radiographic followup. In the description of patient characteristics, continuous variables were assessed using mean and SD or median and interquartile range (IQR) as appropriate. Categorical variables were described as percentages. Differences between cohorts were assessed using nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables.

Conditional logistic regression analyses (stratified per cohort) were performed to determine predictive factors for radiographic progression. Radiographic progression was defined as a change of total Sharp score between baseline and followup ≥ 1. We examined these baseline variables as possible explanatory variables: age, disease duration, DAS28-CRP, CDAI, SDAI, RAMRIS synovitis, RAMRIS erosion, RAMRIS osteitis, sex, cohort, RF, anti-CCP, synthetic DMARD, biologic DMARD, disease activity (LDA/remission), early RA (> 1 yr duration at inclusion).

The following steps were undertaken to determine predictors of radiographic progression: (1) univariate regression with baseline covariates as stated above; (2) multivariate stepwise (entry level 0.4, exit level 0.05) regression including variables with p < 0.4 in the univariate analysis; (3) receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve and model fit [Akaike’s information criteria (AIC)] analyses to identify the best cutoff point(s) of the selected continuous variables; the optimal cutoff point was chosen according to low AIC and closeness to the (0–1) corner of the ROC curve; (4) analysis with the identified cutoff point(s) in the model; (5) identification of possible interaction (subgroup) effects; several possible effects were included such as disease activity (low/remission), biologic/DMARD treatment, and RF; the cutoff point(s) were re-evaluated with respect to interactions; and (6) final model with interaction effects.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics

Two hundred fifty-four out of the 287 patients with longitudinal data were included in the current analysis (33 patients were excluded because of missing information on followup radiographs). Of the 33 excluded patients, 25 were in clinical remission while 8 were in an LDA state. The patients’ characteristics are summarized in Table 2. Comparisons between cohorts show a high degree of heterogeneity across the variables.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Baseline characteristics of patients. Values are median (interquartile range) for continuous variables and number (%) for categorical variables.

MRI findings at baseline

MRI characteristics at baseline have been described and demonstrated that MRI inflammatory activity was observed in the majority of the patients27. Of the 254 patients included in this analysis, synovitis was observed in 95% of patients and osteitis in 49%. Median (IQR) RAMRIS synovitis and osteitis scores at baseline were 6 (3–9) and 0 (0–5), respectively.

Predictors of radiographic progression

Sixty patients (24%) had radiographic progression between baseline and followup. Of these 60 patients, 39 (65%) were in remission (DAS28-CRP < 2.6) and 21 (35%) were in LDA without remission (2.6 ≤ DAS28-CRP < 3.2) at baseline, i.e., 21% of patients in remission and 31% of patients in LDA progressed. Univariate analysis (Table 3) showed a significant association between radiographic progression and baseline RAMRIS synovitis (p = 0.01), with a trend toward an association between baseline disease activity state and subsequent radiographic progression (LDA vs remission, p = 0.11). In the multivariate analysis stratified by cohort, the stepwise selection procedure resulted in RAMRIS synovitis being the only significant independent predictor variable associated with radiographic progression (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03–1.22).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Search for predictive factors of radiographic progression: univariate analysis.

Identifying an MRI inflammatory activity acceptable state

Evaluations were done of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and AIC for different cutoffs (Table 4). These analyses suggested that the best cutoff to discriminate patients with and without risk of radiographic progression was a RAMRIS synovitis score of 5 or 6. The ROC curve for radiographic progression according to RAMRIS synovitis score at baseline in the total population had an area under the curve of 0.64 (95% CI 0.55–0.72 p < 0.01; Figure 1). Possible interactions between RAMRIS synovitis, dichotomized according to cutoffs of 5 and 6, and other variables were investigated. No interaction was found for inflammatory activity at baseline according to DAS28-CRP or disease duration. A significant interaction was found between RAMRIS synovitis with a cutoff at 5 and RF status (p = 0.04). This interaction model gave the best overall model fit according to AIC (see Table 4). ROC curves for RAMRIS synovitis according to RF status are presented in Figure 1, demonstrating better predictive value for RF-positive patients. New multivariate analyses taking into account these new binary variables instead of continuous RAMRIS synovitis score were then performed in the overall population and in the subgroup populations according to RF status (Table 5). A RAMRIS synovitis score > 5 at baseline discriminated well between patients with or without risk of radiographic progression and had a high predictive value for radiographic progression in multivariate analyses with an OR at 4.41 (95% CI 1.72–11.35) for RF-positive patients, stratified by cohort.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Receiver-operating characteristic curve for Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score synovitis at baseline and prediction of radiographic progression in the total population/rheumatoid factor (RF) negatives/RF positives.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for radiographic progression according to different cutoffs of RAMRIS synovitis at baseline. AIC (Akaike’s information criteria) for model without and with the interaction with rheumatoid factor (RF) status.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Predictive value of RAMRIS synovitis for radiographic progression above the best cutoffs at baseline.

DISCUSSION

This large international multicenter study confirms that progression of joint damage occurs in a significant proportion of patients with RA in clinical remission or LDA state. The OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score was identified as a significant independent predictor of this progression, and we have identified a cutoff point for an MRI inflammatory activity acceptable state in RA clinical remission and LDA state, below which radiographic erosive progression rarely occurs.

Modern imaging techniques [ultrasonography (US) and MRI] have proven to be more sensitive than clinical examination for detection of synovitis in RA23,40,41, and several previous studies have shown that MRI inflammation (termed “subclinical”) is frequent both in patients in clinical remission and in LDA state20,24,25. In our present study including 254 patients, MRI synovitis and osteitis were frequent and observed in wrist and/or MCP joints in 95% and 49% of the patients, respectively. Previous studies have suggested that this subclinical inflammation detected by MRI and US may be a prognostic marker for further radiographic progression or flare of disease activity20,25,26,41,42,43,44. For patients with active RA disease, osteitis seems to be the most important predictor of radiographic progression.

In an inception cohort of 84 patients with early RA, osteitis was an independent predictor of structural progression on conventional radiography and MRI5. In the randomized controlled CIMESTRA trial of 130 patients with RA, baseline osteitis score of MCP and wrist joints was the strongest independent predictor of radiographic progression in hands, wrists, and forefeet after 2 years7. The 5-year followup of these patients confirmed a longterm predictive ability of osteitis6. However, several studies have also found MRI synovitis to be of predictive value. Conaghan, et al showed a relationship between MRI synovitis and the development of subsequent MRI erosive damage9. Bøyesen, et al8 found that both baseline and 1-year cumulative measures of MRI synovitis and osteitis independently predicted 3-year radiographic progression. In our present study, osteitis was less frequent than synovitis, and in the longitudinal analyses only synovitis was an independent predictor of radiographic progression. Our results suggest that MRI synovitis may be more important than osteitis for patients in clinical remission or LDA, but further studies are needed to clarify this.

In our present study, 24% of the 254 patients displayed radiographic progression during a followup period of 6–12 months. This radiographic progression occurred in patients both in remission (21% of patients) and LDA (31% of patients). Radiographic joint damage is one of the main consequences of RA and is associated with impaired physical function1,2,3,4. Thus, if a patient with RA achieves clinical remission but has ongoing joint damage, the situation will not be satisfactory. The importance of radiographic progression is also illustrated by the process of the development of the 2011 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) remission criteria, where candidate criteria were tested for their ability to predict good radiographic and functional outcomes45,46. A study comparing several remission criteria, including the 2011 ACR/EULAR criteria, in established RA found similar results22. Thus, our results are consistent with previous findings in other cohorts of patients in clinical remission or LDA, where radiographic progression is found in 10% to 30% of patients with RA20,21,25,47,48.

In 2010 an international task force published recommendations to achieve optimal therapeutic outcomes, providing guidance on how to “treat to target”12. Within these recommendations it was stated that “a state of clinical remission” is the primary target for treatment of RA. The EULAR recommendations from 2010 state that “treatment should be aimed at reaching a target of remission or low disease activity as soon as possible”13, while the more recently published ACR recommendations refer to the ACR/EULAR definition of remission11,45,46, as well as to alternative index-based measures. There are no references to how modern imaging techniques should be used to determine whether a patient is in remission in these recommendations. However, the EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendations on how to report disease activity in clinical trials include a research agenda highlighting the potential role of imaging modalities in the definition of remission and the role of MRI and US in measuring synovitis49. The concept of “imaging remission”, i.e., clinical remission without inflammatory activity assessed by imaging methods, seems to be an attractive target to reduce the risk of joint damage and subsequent reduced physical functioning.

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the predictive value of MRI for radiographic progression in patients in clinical LDA and remission, and to determine an MRI-acceptable inflammatory disease activity state, where structural progression will not occur. Our results suggest that RAMRIS synovitis is associated with radiographic progression in patients in remission or LDA. A significant interaction was found between RAMRIS synovitis and RF status, with a stronger association between RAMRIS synovitis and radiographic progression in RF-positive patients, while no significant association was found for RF-negative patients. The identification of a MRI-acceptable inflammatory disease activity state was performed using ROC curves and evaluation of sensitivity and specificity. A cutoff point of RAMRIS synovitis at 5 appeared to be the more appropriate to define this MRI-acceptable inflammatory disease activity state with a sensitivity of 0.78 and also a high negative predictive value of 0.88 with regard to the risk of radiographic progression. Based on the interaction between RF status and RAMRIS synovitis in our present study, MRI evaluation seems to be especially valuable for RF-positive patients. Our model implies that RF-positive patients in clinical remission or LDA could benefit from an MRI scan for risk stratification, and that those patients with RAMRIS synovitis of 6 or more units should be closely monitored and may be candidates for a possible step-up of antirheumatic therapy, whereas RF-positive patients with a score ≤ 5 may be candidates for less rigorous followup and possible step-down of therapy.

Some limitations of our present study should be considered. MRI and radiographic readers were different in the different cohorts, and the followup period varied between 6 and 12 months. The number of joints assessed by radiography and/or MRI differed slightly between the cohorts, and the radiographic scoring was performed with 2 different, albeit comparable/similar, Sharp-derived scoring methods. It is encouraging that despite these limitations, which would be expected to lower the power to detect a relationship between baseline and followup outcomes, we found a statistically significant and clinically meaningful association of MRI findings with subsequent radiographic damage. To assure the reliability of the data and because of the heterogeneity between the cohorts, all analyses were adjusted for cohort effect. Our result implies that MRI synovitis predicts radiographic progression in RF-positive patients with RA in remission or LDA. This international collaboration is to our knowledge the largest study aiming to assess the value of MRI to predict radiographic progression in a longitudinal followup of patients with RA in remission or LDA. All MRI were assessed using the RAMRIS in all cohorts, and both the MRI evaluation and radiographic readings were performed by experienced readers.

Our study shows that MRI inflammatory activity is frequent in patients in remission or LDA, and that the RAMRIS synovitis score is an independent predictor of radiographic progression in RF-positive patients. An acceptable MRI inflammatory activity state could be determined to identify a subgroup in which radiographic progression would rarely occur, to adjust treatment and frequency of followup. Further studies are necessary to confirm the value of performing MRI on patients in remission. This could be investigated in strategy trials in which patients in remission were randomized to MRI followup or not, and in the MRI-followup arm, patients would receive treatment modification in case of “unacceptable” MRI findings, with clinical and radiographic primary endpoints. This would potentially lead to the proposal of new definitions of remission in RA taking into account MRI findings.

Acknowledgment

Physicians, study nurses, and patients who have contributed to the described RA cohorts are acknowledged for their contributions.

Footnotes

  • Dr. Conaghan has been a speaker or on advisory boards for BMS, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Lillegraven S,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Uhlig T,
    4. Kvien TK,
    5. Haavardsholm EA
    . What is the clinical relevance of erosions and joint space narrowing in RA? Nat Rev Rheumatol 2012;8:117–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Odegard S,
    2. Landewe R,
    3. van der Heijde D,
    4. Kvien TK,
    5. Mowinckel P,
    6. Uhlig T
    . Association of early radiographic damage with impaired physical function in rheumatoid arthritis: a ten-year, longitudinal observational study in 238 patients. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:68–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. van der Heijde D
    . Radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: does it reflect outcome? Does it reflect treatment? Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60 Suppl 3:iii47–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Clarke AE,
    2. St-Pierre Y,
    3. Joseph L,
    4. Penrod J,
    5. Sibley JT,
    6. Haga M,
    7. et al.
    Radiographic damage in rheumatoid arthritis correlates with functional disability but not direct medical costs. J Rheumatol 2001;28:2416–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Haavardsholm EA,
    2. Boyesen P,
    3. Ostergaard M,
    4. Schildvold A,
    5. Kvien TK
    . Magnetic resonance imaging findings in 84 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: bone marrow oedema predicts erosive progression. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:794–800.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Hetland ML,
    2. Stengaard-Pedersen K,
    3. Junker P,
    4. Ostergaard M,
    5. Ejbjerg BJ,
    6. Jacobsen S,
    7. et al.
    Radiographic progression and remission rates in early rheumatoid arthritis — MRI bone oedema and anti-CCP predicted radiographic progression in the 5-year extension of the double-blind randomised CIMESTRA trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1789–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hetland ML,
    2. Ejbjerg B,
    3. Horslev-Petersen K,
    4. Jacobsen S,
    5. Vestergaard A,
    6. Jurik AG,
    7. et al.
    MRI bone oedema is the strongest predictor of subsequent radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a 2-year randomised controlled trial (CIMESTRA). Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:384–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Boyesen P,
    2. Haavardsholm EA,
    3. Ostergaard M,
    4. van der Heijde D,
    5. Sesseng S,
    6. Kvien TK
    . MRI in early rheumatoid arthritis: synovitis and bone marrow oedema are independent predictors of subsequent radiographic progression. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:428–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Conaghan PG,
    2. O’Connor P,
    3. McGonagle D,
    4. Astin P,
    5. Wakefield RJ,
    6. Gibbon WW,
    7. et al.
    Elucidation of the relationship between synovitis and bone damage: a randomized magnetic resonance imaging study of individual joints in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:64–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Atar D,
    2. Birkeland KI,
    3. Uhlig T
    . ‘Treat to target’: moving targets from hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes to rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:629–30.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Singh JA,
    2. Furst DE,
    3. Bharat A,
    4. Curtis JR,
    5. Kavanaugh AF,
    6. Kremer JM,
    7. et al.
    2012 update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:625–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    1. Smolen JS,
    2. Aletaha D,
    3. Bijlsma JW,
    4. Breedveld FC,
    5. Boumpas D,
    6. Burmester G,
    7. et al.
    Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:631–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Smolen JS,
    2. Landewe R,
    3. Breedveld FC,
    4. Dougados M,
    5. Emery P,
    6. Gaujoux-Viala C,
    7. et al.
    EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:964–75.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Scott DL,
    2. Wolfe F,
    3. Huizinga TW
    . Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 2010;376:1094–108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Smolen JS,
    2. Aletaha D
    . What should be our treatment goal in rheumatoid arthritis today? Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006;24 Suppl 43:7–13.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Allaart CF,
    2. Goekoop-Ruiterman YP,
    3. de Vries-Bouwstra JK,
    4. Breedveld FC,
    5. Dijkmans BA
    . Aiming at low disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis with initial combination therapy or initial monotherapy strategies: the BeSt study. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006;24 Suppl 43:77–82.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Verstappen SM,
    2. Jacobs JW,
    3. van der Veen MJ,
    4. Heurkens AH,
    5. Schenk Y,
    6. ter Borg EJ,
    7. et al.
    Intensive treatment with methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: aiming for remission. Computer Assisted Management in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (CAMERA, an open-label strategy trial). Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:1443–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Grigor C,
    2. Capell H,
    3. Stirling A,
    4. McMahon AD,
    5. Lock P,
    6. Vallance R,
    7. et al.
    Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364:263–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Ma MH,
    2. Scott IC,
    3. Kingsley GH,
    4. Scott DL
    . Remission in early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2010;37:1444–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Brown AK,
    2. Conaghan PG,
    3. Karim Z,
    4. Quinn MA,
    5. Ikeda K,
    6. Peterfy CG,
    7. et al.
    An explanation for the apparent dissociation between clinical remission and continued structural deterioration in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58:2958–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Molenaar ET,
    2. Voskuyl AE,
    3. Dinant HJ,
    4. Bezemer PD,
    5. Boers M,
    6. Dijkmans BA
    . Progression of radiologic damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical remission. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:36–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Lillegraven S,
    2. Prince FH,
    3. Shadick NA,
    4. Bykerk VP,
    5. Lu B,
    6. Frits ML,
    7. et al.
    Remission and radiographic outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: application of the 2011 ACR/EULAR remission criteria in an observational cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:681–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Backhaus M,
    2. Burmester GR,
    3. Sandrock D,
    4. Loreck D,
    5. Hess D,
    6. Scholz A,
    7. et al.
    Prospective two year follow up study comparing novel and conventional imaging procedures in patients with arthritic finger joints. Ann Rheum Dis 2002;61:895–904.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Brown AK,
    2. Quinn MA,
    3. Karim Z,
    4. Conaghan PG,
    5. Peterfy CG,
    6. Hensor E,
    7. et al.
    Presence of significant synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis patients with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-induced clinical remission: evidence from an imaging study may explain structural progression. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54:3761–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Foltz V,
    2. Gandjbakhch F,
    3. Etchepare F,
    4. Rosenberg C,
    5. Tanguy ML,
    6. Rozenberg S,
    7. et al.
    Power Doppler ultrasound, but not low-field magnetic resonance imaging, predicts relapse and radiographic disease progression in rheumatoid arthritis patients with low levels of disease activity. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:67–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Gandjbakhch F,
    2. Foltz V,
    3. Mallet A,
    4. Bourgeois P,
    5. Fautrel B
    . Bone marrow oedema predicts structural progression in a 1-year follow-up of 85 patients with RA in remission or with low disease activity with low-field MRI. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:2159–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Gandjbakhch F,
    2. Conaghan PG,
    3. Ejbjerg B,
    4. Haavardsholm EA,
    5. Foltz V,
    6. Brown AK,
    7. et al.
    Synovitis and osteitis are very frequent in rheumatoid arthritis clinical remission: results from an MRI study of 294 patients in clinical remission or low disease activity state. J Rheumatol 2011;38:2039–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Arnett FC,
    2. Edworthy SM,
    3. Bloch DA,
    4. McShane DJ,
    5. Fries JF,
    6. Cooper NS,
    7. et al.
    The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988;31:315–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Ostergaard M,
    2. Peterfy C,
    3. Conaghan P,
    4. McQueen F,
    5. Bird P,
    6. Ejbjerg B,
    7. et al.
    OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Core set of MRI acquisitions, joint pathology definitions, and the OMERACT RA-MRI scoring system. J Rheumatol 2003;30:1385–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Conaghan P,
    2. Bird P,
    3. Ejbjerg B,
    4. O’Connor P,
    5. Peterfy C,
    6. McQueen F,
    7. et al.
    The EULAR-OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas: the metacarpophalangeal joints. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64 Suppl 1:i11–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Bird P,
    2. Conaghan P,
    3. Ejbjerg B,
    4. McQueen F,
    5. Lassere M,
    6. Peterfy C,
    7. et al.
    The development of the EULAR-OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64 Suppl 1:i8–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Ejbjerg B,
    2. McQueen F,
    3. Lassere M,
    4. Haavardsholm E,
    5. Conaghan P,
    6. O’Connor P,
    7. et al.
    The EULAR-OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas: the wrist joint. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64 Suppl 1:i23–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Haavardsholm EA,
    2. Ostergaard M,
    3. Ejbjerg BJ,
    4. Kvan NP,
    5. Uhlig TA,
    6. Lilleas FG,
    7. et al.
    Reliability and sensitivity to change of the OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score in a multireader, longitudinal setting. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3860–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Sharp JT,
    2. Young DY,
    3. Bluhm GB,
    4. Brook A,
    5. Brower AC,
    6. Corbett M,
    7. et al.
    How many joints in the hands and wrists should be included in a score of radiologic abnormalities used to assess rheumatoid arthritis? Arthritis Rheum 1985;28:1326–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. van der Heijde DM,
    2. van Leeuwen MA,
    3. van Riel PL,
    4. Koster AM,
    5. van ‘t Hof MA,
    6. van Rijswijk MH,
    7. et al.
    Biannual radiographic assessments of hands and feet in a three-year prospective followup of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35:26–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Genant HK,
    2. Jiang Y,
    3. Peterfy C,
    4. Lu Y,
    5. Redei J,
    6. Countryman PJ
    . Assessment of rheumatoid arthritis using a modified scoring method on digitized and original radiographs. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:1583–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. van der Heijde D
    . How to read radiographs according to the Sharp/van der Heijde method. J Rheumatol 1999;26:743–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Peterfy CG,
    2. Wu C,
    3. Szechinski J,
    4. DiCarlo JC,
    5. Lu Y,
    6. Genovese M,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of the Genant-modified Sharp and van der Heijde-modified Sharp scoring methods for radiographic assessment in rheumatoid arthritis. Int J Clin Rheumatol 2011; 6:15–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    1. Boini S,
    2. Guillemin F
    . Radiographic scoring methods as outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis: properties and advantages. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60:817–27.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Szkudlarek M,
    2. Klarlund M,
    3. Narvestad E,
    4. Court-Payen M,
    5. Strandberg C,
    6. Jensen KE,
    7. et al.
    Ultrasonography of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging, conventional radiography and clinical examination. Arthritis Res Ther 2006;8:R52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Scire CA,
    2. Montecucco C,
    3. Codullo V,
    4. Epis O,
    5. Todoerti M,
    6. Caporali R
    . Ultrasonographic evaluation of joint involvement in early rheumatoid arthritis in clinical remission: power Doppler signal predicts short-term relapse. Rheumatology 2009;48:1092–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Peluso G,
    2. Michelutti A,
    3. Bosello S,
    4. Gremese E,
    5. Tolusso B,
    6. Ferraccioli G
    . Clinical and ultrasonographic remission determines different chances of relapse in early and long standing rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:172–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Saleem B,
    2. Brown AK,
    3. Quinn M,
    4. Karim Z,
    5. Hensor EM,
    6. Conaghan P,
    7. et al.
    Can flare be predicted in DMARD treated RA patients in remission, and is it important? A cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1316–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Yoshimi R,
    2. Hama M,
    3. Takase K,
    4. Ihata A,
    5. Kishimoto D,
    6. Terauchi K,
    7. et al.
    Ultrasonography is a potent tool for the prediction of progressive joint destruction during clinical remission of rheumatoid arthritis. Mod Rheumatol 2012;23:456–65.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Felson DT,
    2. Smolen JS,
    3. Wells G,
    4. Zhang B,
    5. van Tuyl LH,
    6. Funovits J,
    7. et al.
    American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism provisional definition of remission in rheumatoid arthritis for clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:573–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Felson DT,
    2. Smolen JS,
    3. Wells G,
    4. Zhang B,
    5. van Tuyl LH,
    6. Funovits J,
    7. et al.
    American College of Rheumatology/European League against Rheumatism provisional definition of remission in rheumatoid arthritis for clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:404–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Rezaei H,
    2. Saevarsdottir S,
    3. Forslind K,
    4. Albertsson K,
    5. Wallin H,
    6. Bratt J,
    7. et al.
    In early rheumatoid arthritis, patients with a good initial response to methotrexate have excellent 2-year clinical outcomes, but radiological progression is not fully prevented: data from the methotrexate responders population in the SWEFOT trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:186–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Aletaha D,
    2. Smolen JS
    . Joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis progresses in remission according to the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints and is driven by residual swollen joints. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:3702–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Aletaha D,
    2. Landewe R,
    3. Karonitsch T,
    4. Bathon J,
    5. Boers M,
    6. Bombardier C,
    7. et al.
    Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendations. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:1371–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 41, Issue 2
1 Feb 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Determining a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Inflammatory Activity Acceptable State Without Subsequent Radiographic Progression in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from a Followup MRI Study of 254 Patients in Clinical Remission or Low Disease Activity
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Determining a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Inflammatory Activity Acceptable State Without Subsequent Radiographic Progression in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from a Followup MRI Study of 254 Patients in Clinical Remission or Low Disease Activity
Frédérique Gandjbakhch, Espen A. Haavardsholm, Philip G. Conaghan, Bo Ejbjerg, Violaine Foltz, Andrew K. Brown, Uffe Møller Døhn, Marissa Lassere, Jane E. Freeston, Inge Christoffer Olsen, Pernille Bøyesen, Paul Bird, Bruno Fautrel, Merete Lund Hetland, Paul Emery, Pierre Bourgeois, Kim Hørslev-Petersen, Tore K. Kvien, Fiona M. McQueen, Mikkel Østergaard
The Journal of Rheumatology Feb 2014, 41 (2) 398-406; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.131088

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Determining a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Inflammatory Activity Acceptable State Without Subsequent Radiographic Progression in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from a Followup MRI Study of 254 Patients in Clinical Remission or Low Disease Activity
Frédérique Gandjbakhch, Espen A. Haavardsholm, Philip G. Conaghan, Bo Ejbjerg, Violaine Foltz, Andrew K. Brown, Uffe Møller Døhn, Marissa Lassere, Jane E. Freeston, Inge Christoffer Olsen, Pernille Bøyesen, Paul Bird, Bruno Fautrel, Merete Lund Hetland, Paul Emery, Pierre Bourgeois, Kim Hørslev-Petersen, Tore K. Kvien, Fiona M. McQueen, Mikkel Østergaard
The Journal of Rheumatology Feb 2014, 41 (2) 398-406; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.131088
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgment
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Keywords

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
REMISSION
LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY STATE

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

OMERACT 11

  • Updating the OMERACT Filter at OMERACT 11
  • Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core Areas as a Basis for Defining Core Outcome Sets
  • How to Choose Core Outcome Measurement Sets for Clinical Trials: OMERACT 11 Approves Filter 2.0
Show more OMERACT 11

Imaging and Other Biomarkers

  • Iterative Development and Reliability of the OMERACT Hand Osteoarthritis MRI Scoring System
  • Update on the OMERACT Magnetic Resonance Imaging Task Force: Research and Future Directions
  • Preliminary Validation of 2 Magnetic Resonance Image Scoring Systems for Osteoarthritis of the Hip According to the OMERACT Filter
Show more Imaging and Other Biomarkers

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • rheumatoid arthritis
  • magnetic resonance imaging
  • remission
  • LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY STATE

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire