Difficult to treat rheumatoid arthritis in a comprehensive evaluation program: frequency according to different objective evaluations.

Difficult-to-treat Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-D2T) is a condition in which patients do not achieve the treatment target despite multiple advanced therapies, more others features. Aims: to estimate the frequency of RA-D2T in a cohort comprehensively evaluated (clinical, serology, imaging), and to analyze the associated characteristics. In a second part, the frequency of RA-D2T after 1 year of follow-up, analyzing the predictive variables at baseline and therapeutic behavior. Cross-sectional and prospective study, consecutive RA were included, then those who completed the one-year follow-up were evaluated. RA-D2T frequency was estimated (DAS28-CDAI-SDAI-Ultrasonography (US)-HAQ) at baseline and 1 year. The variables associated and those baseline predictive characteristics of D2T at 1 year, and their independent association by logistic regression were analyzed. The treatment approach was described. Two hundred seventy-six patients completed the evaluation, frequency of RA-D2T (all scores): 27.5%. Anemia, RF high titers and higher HAQ score were independent associated. At year, 125 competed follow-up. RA-D2T (all scores): 33%, D2T-US and D2T-HAQ were 14 and 18.4% (p 0.001). Predictive baseline characteristics D2T (all score): ACPA + (OR: 13.7) and X-ray erosion (OR: 2.9). D2T-US: X-ray erosion (OR: 19.7). Conventional DMARDs, corticosteroids and TNF-blockers were the drugs most used by D2T patients, Jaki were the most used in the switch. We showed different frequencies of RA-D2T according to different objective parameters (scores, images) and their association with patient characteristics. In turn, predictive variables (erosions-ACPA) for RA-D2T at 1 year were analyzed. It was shown that the Jaki were the most used drug in these patients.

Ultrasound tenosynovitis: A differential feature of patients with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify differential features between patients with seropositive and seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHOD: Prospective cohort study, including patients who were admitted for polyarthralgia. At baseline was performed: laboratory studies, X-rays of hands and feet, ultrasound of both hands with power Doppler technique, clinical data and clinimetry. In subsequent visits the definitive diagnosis of RA was established or not. It was considered as seronegative RA when patients were negative for both RF and ACPAs. RESULTS: 746 patients were included, of which 128 (17.1%) ended with a final diagnosis of RA. Of these 128 patients, 87 (67.9%) were seropositive RA, while 41 (32%) were seronegative RA. The only feature that showed significant differences was the presence of tenosynovitis detected by ultrasound with a positive power Doppler signal, 13.7% of the patients with seropositive RA vs 41.6% of the patients with seronegative RA (p=0.0028). CONCLUSION: The only differential feature of patients with seronegative RA was the higher proportion of tenosynovitis detected by ultrasound.

Ultrasound tenosynovitis: A differential feature of patients with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis / Tenosinovitis ecográfica: una característica diferencial de pacientes con artritis reumatoide seronegativa

Objective: To identify differential features between patients with seropositive and seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Method: Prospective cohort study, including patients who were admitted for polyarthralgia. At baseline was performed: laboratory studies, X-rays of hands and feet, ultrasound of both hands with power Doppler technique, clinical data and clinimetry. In subsequent visits the definitive diagnosis of RA was established or not. It was considered as seronegative RA when patients were negative for both RF and ACPAs. Results: 746 patients were included, of which 128 (17.1%) ended with a final diagnosis of RA. Of these 128 patients, 87 (67.9%) were seropositive RA, while 41 (32%) were seronegative RA. The only feature that showed significant differences was the presence of tenosynovitis detected by ultrasound with a positive power Doppler signal, 13.7% of the patients with seropositive RA vs 41.6% of the patients with seronegative RA (p=0.0028). Conclusion: The only differential feature of patients with seronegative RA was the higher proportion of tenosynovitis detected by ultrasound.(AU)

Objetivo: Identificar características diferenciales entre pacientes con artritis reumatoide (AR) seropositivos y seronegativos. Método: Estudio de cohorte prospectivo, incluyendo pacientes con poliartralgias. Al inicio se realizó: estudios de laboratorio, radiografías de manos y pies, ecografía de ambas manos con técnica power doppler, datos clínicos y clinimetría. En visitas posteriores se estableció o no el diagnóstico definitivo de AR. Se consideró AR seronegativa cuando los pacientes eran negativos tanto para factor reumatoide como para anticuerpos antipéptido cíclico citrulinado. Resultados: Se incluyeron 746 pacientes, de los cuales 128 (17,1%) terminaron con diagnóstico final de AR. De estos 128 pacientes, 87 (67,9%) eran AR seropositivos, mientras que 41 (32%) eran AR seronegativos.La única característica que mostró diferencias significativas fue la presencia de tenosinovitis detectada por ecografía con señal power doppler positiva, el 13,7% de los pacientes con AR seropositiva frente al 41,6% de los pacientes con AR seronegativa (p=0,0028). Conclusión: El único rasgo diferencial de los pacientes con AR seronegativa fue la mayor proporción de tenosinovitis detectadas por ecografía.(AU)

Factores asociados al desarrollo de secuelas en un grupo de pacientes con síndrome doloroso regional complejo tipo 1 (SUDECK) / Associated factors related to the development of sequels in a group of patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (SUDECK)

Introducción: El Síndrome doloroso regional complejo tipo 1 (SDRC) o Sudeck se caracteriza por manifestarse con dolor, tumefacción, trastornos sensoriales, disfunción vasomotora autonómica, cambios tróficos en los tejidos y trastornos en la motilidad del área afectada. Pudiendo ocurrir en una o varias regiones articulares, sin repercusión sistémica y sin modificar parámetros inflamatorios. Objetivo: Estimar el porcentaje de pacientes que desarrollan secuelas en el seguimiento y los factores asociados. Materiales y Métodos: Estudio Prospectivo, observacional, se incluyeron pacientes mayores de 18 años con diagnostico de SDRC tipo 1 según criterios Budapest. Se consignaron variables demográficas, de las características de la enfermedad, tipo, tiempo y respuesta al tratamiento. Se definió secuelas según el registro de historias clinicas de el consultorio de riesgo de trabajo "alta con secuelas". Resultados: Se incluyeron 98 pacientes, de los cuales el 65,3 % eran mujeres, con una mediana de edad de 54 años (RIC: 45-61). El desarrollo de Secuelas (60%) se asoció con la, indicación precisa de rehabilitación (p 0,001). Conclusión: El 60 % de los pacientes desarrollaron secuelas en su seguimiento, las mismas se asociaron en forma independiente con la indicación de rehabilitación y en forma negativa con la buena respuesta al tratamiento.

Background/Purpose: complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a form of chronic pain that usually affects an arm or a leg. CRPS typically develops after an injury, a surgery, a stroke or a heart attack. The pain is out of proportion to the severity of the initial injury. CRPS is uncommon, and its cause isn't clearly understood. Methods: To estimate the percentage of patients with CRPS who develop disability and its associated factors. Consecutive patients older than 18 years old whose met Budapest criteria for CRPS type 1 were included. Demographic variables, time of follow-up, main cause of the disease and location, time between trauma and starting treatment were recorded from the electronic clinical history (ECH). Previous immobilization, type were recorded. of treatment, response to it and clinical manifestations. Disability was defined when there was a change in work activity. Results: 98 patients were included with at least one year of follow up, 65.3% were women. The median age is 54 years (45-61). The prevalence of disability was 60%. We found a significant and independent association with indication of rehabilitation (OR: 4.3 CI: 1.3-14) and response to treatment (OR: 0.078 CI: 0.023-0, 2). Conclusion: 60% of the patients developed disability in their follow-up, they were associated independently with the indication of rehabilitation and in a negative way with a good response to treatment.