Search

Objective: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of small joints sensitively detects inflammation. This inflammation, and tenosynovitis in particular, has been shown to predict rheumatoid arthritis (RA) development in arthralgia patients. These data have predominantly been acquired on 1.0–1.5 T MRI. However, 3.0 T is now commonly used in practice. Evidence on the comparability of these field strengths is scarce and has never included subtle inflammation in arthralgia patients or tenosynovitis. Therefore, we assessed the comparability of 1.5 T and 3.0 T in detecting subclinical inflammation in arthralgia patients.Method: A total of 2968 locations (joints, bones, tendon sheaths) in the hands and forefeet of 28 patients with small-joint arthralgia, at risk for RA, were imaged on both 1.5 and 3.0 T MRI. Two blinded readers independently scored erosions, osteitis, synovitis, and tenosynovitis, in line with the Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (RAMRIS). Features were summed into inflammation (osteitis, synovitis, tenosynovitis) and RAMRIS (inflammation and erosions). Agreement was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for continuous scores and after dichotomization into presence or absence of inflammation, on patient and location levels.Results: Interreader ICCs were excellent (> 0.90). Comparing 1.5 and 3.0 T revealed an ICC of 0.90 for inflammation and RAMRIS. ICCs for individual inflammation features were: tenosynovitis 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.74–0.94), synovitis 0.65 (0.24–0.84), and osteitis 0.96 (0.91–0.98). Agreement was 83% for inflammation and 89% for RAMRIS. Analyses on the location level showed similar results.Conclusion: Agreement on subclinical inflammation between 1.5 T and 3.0 T was excellent. Although synovitis scores were slightly different, synovitis often occurs simultaneously with other inflammatory signs, suggesting that scientific results on the predictive value of MRI-detected inflammation for RA, obt

Objective: To investigate if knee osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with lower physical activity in the general middle-aged Dutch population, and if physical activity is associated with patient-reported outcomes in knee OA. Design: Clinical knee OA was defined in the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity population using the ACR criteria, and structural knee OA on MRI. We assessed knee pain and function with the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with the Short Form-36, and physical activity (in Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET) hours) with the Short Questionnaire to Assess Health-enhancing physical activity. We analysed the associations of knee OA with physical activity, and of physical activity with knee pain, function, and HRQoL in knee OA with linear regression adjusted for potential confounders. Results: Clinical knee OA was present in 14% of 6,212 participants, (mean age 56 years, mean BMI 27 kg/m2, 55% women, 24% having any comorbidity) and structural knee OA in 12%. Clinical knee OA was associated with 9.60 (95% CI 3.70; 15.50) MET hours per week more physical activity, vs no clinical knee OA. Structural knee OA was associated with 3.97 (−7.82; 15.76) MET hours per week more physical activity, vs no structural knee OA. In clinical knee OA, physical activity was not associated with knee pain, function or HRQoL. Conclusions: Knee OA was not associated with lower physical activity, and in knee OA physical activity was not associated with patient-reported outcomes. Future research should indicate the optimal treatment advice regarding physical activity for individual knee OA patients.