RESUMO
AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the implication of doubtful joint swelling on clinical examination with respect to objective markers of synovitis by ultrasound (US) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Two independent observers performed a modified 28 swollen joint assessment (28SJC), in which joints could be graded as either definitely swollen, non-swollen, or doubtfully swollen. Two examiners blinded to clinical information performed US assessment of the hands. We performed descriptive statistics and models to analyse the links between clinical assessment and objective markers of inflammation. RESULTS: A total of 1204 joints were evaluated in 43 RA patients; 93% (40/43) of patients had ⩾1 joint with doubtful swelling (range: 0-4/patient). Inter-reader reliability for the modified 28SJC was good (0.74). Generally, both grey scale (GS) and power Doppler (PD) discriminated across not swollen, doubtful, and swollen joints. GS signals discriminated better than PD between doubtful swelling and no swelling [odds ratio (OR) for GS: 5.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-23.3 versus OR for PD 1.7; 95% CI 0.2-13.0], whereas PD discriminated better than GS between swelling and doubtful swelling (OR for PD: 28.7; 95% CI 3.6-228.2 versus GS: 1.7; 95% CI 0.3-8.4). Joint osteophytes did not increase the degree of doubtfulness. CONCLUSION: Clinical doubt in the assessment of joint swelling constitutes an intermediate state between unequivocal swelling and the lack thereof also regarding the objectively quantified level of inflammation. In order to increase sensitivity for joint inflammation, the historical clinical approach of considering doubtful swelling the absence of swelling should be revisited to interpret clinical doubtfulness as an indication of swelling.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: It is estimated that 50-70% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are non-adherent to their recommended treatment. Non-adherent patients have a higher risk of not reaching an optimal clinical outcome. We explored factors associated with nonadherence from the patient's perspective. METHODS: Four hundred and fifty-nine RA patients (346 (75.4%) females; mean age 63.0 ± 14.8 years) who failed to attend follow-up visits in two rheumatology centres were eligible to participate in a qualitative interview study. We used this strategy to identify patients who were potentially non-adherent to medicines and/or non-pharmacological interventions. By means of meaning condensation analysis, we identified new and some already well known insights to factors associated with non-adherence. We used the capability, opportunity, and motivation model of behaviour (COM-B) model as a frame of reference to classify the factors. RESULTS: Forty-three of 131 patients (32.8%) who agreed to participate in the qualitative interviews were found to be non-adherent. New insights on factors associated with non-adherence included strong opinions of patients, such as pain being considered as an indicator of hard work and something to be proud of, or inflammation being a natural process that should not be suppressed; feeling not to be in expert's hands when being treated by a physician/health professional; the experience of excessive self-control over the treatment; and rheumatologists addressing only drugs and omitting non-pharmacological aspects. The COM-B model comprehensively covered the range of our findings. CONCLUSIONS: The new insights on factors associated with non-adherence allow a better understanding of this phenomenon and can substantially enhance patient care by helping to develop targeted interventions.