T2 distribution profiles are a good way to show cartilage regional variabilities and cartilage insufficiency.
- 作者列表："Snoj Ž","Vidmar J","Gergar M","Plut D","Salapura V
OBJECTIVE:To use T2 relaxation time distribution profiles to assess inter-group regional differences along articular surfaces and to evaluate the feasibility of this analysis for comparison of cartilage insufficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twelve pairs matched according to age and gender (12 healthy volunteers and 12 patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR)) underwent 3-T MRI. T2 maps were calculated from six time echo images of the mid-sagittal slice in the lateral and medial compartment. The femoral and tibial cartilage was analyzed by measuring T2 distribution profiles along the articular surfaces. RESULTS:T2 distribution profiles were generated along the length of the articular surface in the femorotibial compartments. Differences in the T2 distribution profiles between the tibial and femoral cartilage as well as between the cartilage of the femoral condyles were identified in healthy individuals. T2 distribution profiles clearly demonstrated cartilage insufficiency in the weight-bearing areas for subjects in the ACLR group. CONCLUSIONS:T2 distribution profiles can identify regional differences in femoral and tibial cartilage. The T2 distribution profile pattern is preserved with cartilage insufficiency, however, with important differences in T2 values for the ACLR group in weight-bearing areas.
目的: 使用T2 弛豫时间分布曲线评估沿关节面的组间区域差异，并评估该分析用于比较软骨功能不全的可行性。 材料和方法: 12 对根据年龄和性别匹配的患者 (12 例健康志愿者和 12 例前交叉韧带重建 (ACLR) 后患者) 接受 3-T MRI检查。T2 图由外侧和内侧间室中矢状面中间切片的 6 个时间回波图像计算。通过测量沿关节面T2 分布轮廓分析股骨和胫骨软骨。 结果: T2 分布轮廓沿股骨胫室关节面长度产生。在健康个体中确定了胫骨和股骨软骨之间以及股骨髁软骨之间T2 分布特征的差异。T2 分布特征清楚地显示了ACLR组受试者负重区域的软骨功能不全。 结论: T2 分布轮廓可以识别股骨和胫骨软骨的区域差异。T2 分布模式保留了软骨功能不全，然而，ACLR组在负重区域的T2 值存在重要差异。
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the cardiovascular risk of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS) remains poorly studied. We aimed to investigate the association between primary SS and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. METHODS:We performed a systematic review of articles in Medline and the Cochrane Library and recent abstracts from US and European meetings, searching for reports of randomized controlled studies of cardiovascular morbidity and cardiovascular mortality in primary SS. The relative risk (RR) values for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with primary SS were collected and pooled in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model by using Review Manager (Cochrane collaboration). RESULTS:The literature search revealed 484 articles and abstracts of interest; 14 studies (67,124 patients with primary SS) were included in the meta-analysis. With primary SS versus control populations, the risk was significantly increased for coronary morbidity (RR 1.34 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.06-1.38]; P = 0.01), cerebrovascular morbidity (RR 1.46 [95% CI 1.43-1.49]; P < 0.00001), heart failure rate (odds ratio 2.54 [95% CI 1.30-4.97]; P < 0.007), and thromboembolic morbidity (RR 1.78 [95% CI 1.41-2.25]; P < 0.00001), with no statistically significant increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.48 [95% CI 0.77-2.85]; P = 0.24). CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis demonstrates that primary SS is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity, which suggests that these patients should be screened for cardiovascular comorbidities and considered for preventive interventions, in a multidisciplinary approach with cardiologists.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:We aimed to evaluate the comparative risk of hospitalized infection among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiated abatacept versus a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). METHODS:Using claims data from Truven MarketScan database (2006-2015), we identified patients with RA ages ≥18 years with ≥2 RA diagnoses who initiated treatment with abatacept or a TNFi. The primary outcome was a composite end point of any hospitalized infection. Secondary outcomes included bacterial infection, herpes zoster, and infections affecting different organ systems. We performed 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching between the groups in order to control for baseline confounders. We estimated incidence rates (IRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for hospitalized infection. RESULTS:We identified 11,248 PS-matched pairs of patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and TNFi with a median age of 56 years (83% were women). The IR per 1,000 person-years for any hospitalized infection was 37 among patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and 47 in those who initiated treatment with TNFi. The HR for the risk of any hospitalized infection associated with abatacept versus TNFi was 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95) and remained lower when compared to infliximab (HR 0.63 [95% CI 0.47-0.85]), while no significant difference was seen when compared to adalimumab and etanercept. The risk of secondary outcomes was lower for abatacept for pulmonary infections, and similar to TNFi for the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSION:In this large cohort of patients with RA who initiated treatment with abatacept or TNFi as a first- or second-line biologic agent, we found a lower risk of hospitalized infection after initiating abatacept versus TNFi, which was driven mostly by infliximab.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Reducing pain is one of the main health priorities for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA); however, some studies indicate that pain is not routinely assessed in this patient group. The aim of this study was to explore health care professionals' (HCPs) beliefs about the role of pain and the prioritization of its assessment in children and young people with JIA. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs who manage children and young people with JIA in the UK (including consultant and trainee pediatric rheumatologists, nurses, physical therapists, and occupational therapists). Data were analyzed qualitatively following a framework analysis approach. RESULTS:Twenty-one HCPs participated. Analyses of the data identified 6 themes, including lack of training and low confidence in pain assessment, reluctance to engage in pain discussions, low prioritization of pain assessment, specific beliefs about the nature of pain in JIA, treatment of pain in JIA, and undervaluing pain reports. Assessment of pain symptoms was regarded as a low priority and some HCPs actively avoided conversations about pain. CONCLUSION:These findings indicate that the assessment of pain in children and young people with JIA may be limited by knowledge, skills, and attitudinal factors. HCPs' accounts of their beliefs about pain in JIA and their low prioritization of pain in clinical practice suggest that a shift in perceptions about pain management may be helpful for professionals managing children and young people with this condition.