ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Comparison of in-office magnetic resonance imaging versus conventional radiography in detecting changes in erosions after one year of infliximab therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
Authors
Norman B. Gaylis1, Steven D. Needell2 and Daniel Rudensky2
- Department of Rheumatology, Arthritis and Rheumatic Disease Specialties, 21097 NE 27th Court Suite 200, Aventura, FL 33180, USA
- Boca Radiology Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA
Received:
30 January 2007
Accepted:
09 April 2007
Full Text
Download (PDF)
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare standard hand radiographs with in-office 0.2T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in monitoring response to therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were receiving infliximab, to evaluate the frequency and location of erosions, and to determine if there were differences in outcome based on disease duration at baseline. Patients who satisfied the American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA and were receiving infliximab therapy were evaluated with a baseline and 1-year follow-up MRI. Magnetic resonance images were interpreted by two blinded, board-certified radiologists. Bone erosions were identified as well-defined defects extending through the cortical margin. The mean age of the 48 patients was 58.5 years. The median infliximab dosage was 4mg/kg. Baseline data showed that 41 patients had abnormal MRIs. The mean time between the baseline and follow-up MRI examinations was 10.5 months. Follow-up MRI revealed regression in 11 patients. Thirty-one patients had both MRIs and radiographs. Magnetic resonance imaging was approximately twice as sensitive as radiography in detecting erosions at baseline. In-office MRI was useful in monitoring disease response after the initiation of infliximab treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging is potentially a very valuable diagnostic tool and prognostic indicator for use in patients with RA.
Key words
Erosion - Infliximab - Magnetic resonance imaging - Radiography - Rheumatoid arthritis
