PubMed1992
Efforts continue to identify and consistently utilize those clinical, laboratory, imaging, and other features of rheumatoid arthritis that best reflect the disease process and its impact on individual patients. We seek descriptions that are accurate, reproducible, simple, sensitive, and predictive. Such assessments will lead to development of prognoses for individual patients and to more rational patient management. The past year has witnessed reemphasis of health status indexes (instruments) and other simple approaches to clinical assessment of patients, eg, use of standardized grip strength, button test, walk time, and modified articular indexes. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging provided clinically important and otherwise unappreciated (but expensive) information about joint integrity and inflammatory disease with sensitivity and resolution considerably beyond conventional techniques. Laboratory assessment of patients included consideration or reconsideration of the utility of measurements of C-reactive protein, rheumatoid factors, immune complexes, complement receptors and complement activation products, antiperinuclear factors, trace elements, interleukins and interleukin receptors, soluble cell surface receptors, lymphoid cell phenotypes, and synovial immunohistology; all are important in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis and all have contributed variably to predicting patient outcomes. None were shown to be more clinically informative than erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein. The variables that have been associated with unfavorable prognosis for rheumatoid arthritis are also discussed. We hope that continued study will lead to identification and adoption of simple assessments that will prove to be powerful predictors of good or poor patient outcomes and stratification of patient risk. This uniform measure of disease assessment will improve judgments of potential benefits of therapeutic interventions.