Skip to main content
Download PDF

Laboratory biomarkers or imaging in the diagnostics of rheumatoid arthritis?

BMC Medicine volume 12, Article number: 49 (2014) Cite this article

Abstract

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common autoimmune disease in which a heterogeneous course and different pathogenic mechanisms are implicated in chronic inflammation and joint destruction. Despite the diagnostic contribution of anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies (ACPAs) and rheumatoid factors, about one-third of RA patients remain seronegative. ACPAs belong to a heterogeneous family of autoantibodies targeting citrullinated proteins, including myelin-basic protein, several histone proteins, filaggrin and fibrin, fibrinogen or vimentin. In addition to ACPAs, antibodies directed against other post-translationally modified-carbamylated proteins (anti-CarP) were detected in up to 30% of ACPA-negative patients. Using phage display technology, further autoantibodies were recently discovered as candidate biomarkers for seronegative RA patients. Furthermore, in clinical practice, ultrasound may reveal subclinical synovitis and radiographically undetected bone erosions. To improve diagnostic certainty in undifferentiated arthritis and seronegative patients, ultrasound imaging and several new biomarkers may help to identify at risk patients and those with early disease. In this commentary we summarize recent advances in joint ultrasound and future potential of serological biomarkers to improve diagnosis of RA.

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by persistent inflammation and joint damage with a heterogeneous course and different pathogenic mechanisms leading to common signs and symptoms [1]. In routine clinical practices, early diagnosis and recognition of inflammatory arthritis of short duration that develops to established RA in the future is sometimes difficult. In contrast to a few patients with inflammatory arthritis who may undergo spontaneous remission and some who may have a mild disease course with slow progression, more patients have moderate to high disease activity and some develop aggressive joint damage and systemic complications. Therefore, laboratory biomarkers and/or imaging assessments that would be more effective in the diagnosis of early disease are needed. Although RA is a clinical diagnosis and has no specific pathognomonic test defined so far, serological tests represent the most important parameters for diagnosis and for identification of at risk patients. Anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies (ACPAs), especially in high levels, are associated with aggressive disease and together with acute phase reactants were implemented in the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria of RA [2]. Fulfillment of these criteria thus persuades clinicians to initiate appropriate therapy early to avoid irreversible damage. Despite the high diagnostic value of ACPAs and rheumatoid factors (RFs), there is still a need for novel biomarkers to further improve the diagnosis of RA. Several novel autoantigens and antibodies that may improve early diagnosis and predict further development of the disease have been recently identified [3]. Besides clinical signs and serological tests, imaging techniques, particularly ultrasound, may improve early diagnosis of RA, particularly in seronegative patients.

In this commentary, we will attempt to summarize the role of ultrasound and several serological biomarkers, which are currently studied in order to serve as surrogate measures for RA diagnosis.

Imaging biomarkers in arthritis: the role of ultrasound

Ultrasound (US) is able to provide high resolution multiplanar images of soft tissue, cartilage and bone profiles [4]. The high resolution of the latest generation of ultrasound equipment allows for a detailed assessment of the finest anatomical changes, which is valuable for the early diagnosis and monitoring of chronic arthritis [5]. Information obtained using US can be integrated with clinical data in patients with early disease. This leads to a more precise diagnosis based on the identification of the specific anatomical targets of the disease, especially in patients with seronegative RA [6]. It is not easy to summarize the wide range of US findings that may be candidates for the role of useful diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in patients with arthritis [7]. These include: fluid collections, synovial hypertrophy, cartilage abnormalities, bone erosions, crystal aggregates, tendon damage, entesophytes, increased soft tissue perfusion (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1
figure1

Early arthritis. The longitudinal dorsal scan of the II metacarpophalangeal joint (A) shows a wide spectrum of inflammatory findings, such as joint cavity widening, fluid collection (°), synovial hypertrophy (*) and multiple power Doppler spots (+). The transverse scans of the same joint (B, C) better confirm the presence of a highly perfused synovial pannus that is a strong predictor of anatomical damage. This figure is original and has not been previously published.

Full size image
Figure 2
figure2

Late arthritis (detail of the metacarpal head). Large subchondral bone erosion (>) filled by highly perfused synovial pannus (+) that confirms the presence of intense inflammatory activity and indicates an evident unresponsiveness to treatment. This figure is original and has not been previously published.

Full size image

The presence of homogeneously anechoic fluid collection without synovial hypertrophy is a reliable indicator of nonaggressive synovitis. Synovial hypertrophy is one of the most characteristic features of chronic synovitis and should be regarded as one of the most reliable morphological biomarkers of aggressive arthritis. US images of synovial hypertrophy show a significant degree of variability, from circumscribed polypoid (Figure 1B) or bushy appearance to diffuse aspects.

US allows detailed analysis of the extent and distribution of the various features of cartilage damage. In patients with advanced arthritis, cartilage damage worsens as the disease progresses, leading to progressive thinning of the joint cartilage that appears as homogeneous joint space narrowing on X-rays.

Bone erosions are the most dramatic evidence of the destructive potential of chronic arthritis. The sensitivity of US is such that bone erosions as small as one-tenth of a millimeter can be detected. Loss of sharpness and fine irregularities of the bone profile at the points of contact with the synovial pannus are probably the most sensitive morphological biomarkers to predict the subsequent appearance of erosions. The superiority of US compared with traditional radiology is due to the combination of higher spatial resolution and multiplanar exploration. The presence of synovial pannus and Doppler signal within the erosion is clinically relevant, and provides indications on the course of inflammation and the potential evolution of the anatomical damage (Figure 2).

Ultrasound is the method of choice for the examination of tendons because it provides higher spatial resolution than other imaging modalities and can be used to examine in detail the internal structure of tendons and their perfusion. The most frequent sonographic abnormalities of tendons with synovial sheath in rheumatic diseases include: tendon sheath widening, inhomogeneity of tendon structure, localized reduction of tendon diameter, contour defect, synovial cysts, interruption, fragmentation and disappearance of echotexture, tendon tear.

The enthesis is a microscopic universe that can be accurately explored with high-resolution ultrasound imaging. In gray scale imaging, the main evidence of inflammation is circumscribed or large hypo-echoic areas on the tendon part of the enthesis that can be associated with tendon thickening. Increased blood flow at the tendon insertion is generally related to the intensity of inflammation.

Doppler US has proved to be a useful tool for evaluating soft tissue hyperemia [6]. Intra-articular Doppler signal in patients with chronic arthritis is mainly due to ongoing angiogenesis in areas of synovial hypertrophy. The persistence of intensely perfused areas of synovial hypertrophy inside the joint is a reliable indicator of inadequate response to therapy. Patients with this type of active synovitis should be carefully monitored and their treatment schedules modified, even if clinical response appears encouraging. The presence of synovial pannus is not limited to the joint in patients with chronic arthritis. Tendons lined by synovial sheaths may develop synovitis. Areas of synovial hypertrophy surrounding tendons may be associated with synovial fluid collection or be the unique and dominant expression of the inflammatory process. The widely ranging intensity and distribution of Doppler signal within and around a joint make establishing effective and reproducible parameters difficult. A detailed assessment of the joint cavity and of the bone and cartilage profile to identify critical areas is paramount to monitoring the disease course and the progression of anatomical damage in the short term [8]. Special attention should be paid to identifying areas where the perfused synovial pannus is in close contact with bone or cartilage. In these areas, early signs of circumscribed anatomical damage can be seen (Figure 3).

Figure 3
figure3

Early aggressive arthritis (dorsal view, transverse scan). The Doppler signal is closely linked to the bone margin (A). The same image without Doppler signal (B) shows an evident circumscribed loss of sharpness of the bone margin (>) at the point of contact with the synovial pannus (+). This figure is original and has not been previously published.

Full size image

Laboratory biomarkers in arthritis: predictive and prognostic values

Rheumatoid factor occurs in 60 to 80% of established and 50 to 60% of early RA and, until now, is one of the most widely used biomarkers in RA diagnostics [9]. RF is a relatively good biomarker for establishing the diagnosis of RA, although it does not correlate with disease activity, and is present in other systemic autoimmune as well as infectious diseases and inflammatory conditions.

Anti-RA 33, an IgG antibody directed against a nuclear protein antigen, seems to be identical to the A2 protein of the heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein (hnRNP), was detected in approximately 30% of RA and in 27 to 45% of seronegative RA patients [10]. Autoantibodies against the hnRNP A2 protein occurs in about 35% of RA patients and can be found also in other systemic autoimmune diseases, and in less than 5% of healthy individuals.

Anti-Savoie (Anti-Sa), a RA-specific autoantibody, presents in the sera of about 43% of RA patients but not in many other autoimmune diseases or in healthy individuals. In addition, 27% of RF negative RA patients were also positive for anti-Sa [11]. The overall specificity of anti-Sa is 92 to 98%, whereas the sensitivity is about 40%. The high specificity is coupled with substantial prognostic value as anti-Sa positivity has been associated with more active and destructive disease. Thus, anti-Sa might have important diagnostic and prognostic relevance in RA.

ACPAs have recently emerged as highly sensitive and specific serological markers of RA, providing a superior alternative to the RF test in the laboratory diagnostics of RA. The association of RA with shared epitope positive HLA-DRB1 alleles is stronger in ACPAs positive than in ACPAs negative RA [12]. ACPAs production can precede the onset of RA symptoms by years and ACPA-positive individuals with undifferentiated arthritis have higher risk of developing RA [13]. ACPAs have an important prognostic role, while they are associated with pronounced radiographic progression [14]. ACPAs belong to a heterogeneous family of autoantibodies, including, among others, anti-perinuclear factor (APF; targeting pro-filaggrin), anti-keratin antibodies (AKA; targeting filaggrin), and other citrullinated protein antibodies, such as citrullinated fibrinogen, histone or myelin-basic protein [15]. Anti-Sa antibodies are in fact antibodies against citrullinated vimentin and represent key autoantibodies of the ACPA family, where vimentin is secreted and citrullinated by macrophages in response to apoptosis or by pro-inflammatory cytokines [16]. Mutated isoform of vimentin gave rise to anti-mutated citrullinated vimentin (anti-MCV) ELISA [16]. The occurrence of anti-MCV is between 21 to 43% in RA, while in other systemic autoimmune diseases only 1%, which makes the autoantibody having low sensitivity, but very high specificity. APF occurs 40 to 70% of RA patients and is highly specific (80 to 90%) [17]. AKA occurs in 40 to 60% of RA patients with a rather high specificity of 80 to 95% [18]. APF and AKA can serve as early markers, since both can be detectable before clinical symptoms appear [17, 18]. Diagnostic performance of antibodies to citrullinated fibrinogen (ACF) is similar to the anti-CCP2 assays. ACF is a useful tool for early diagnosis and evaluating radiographic progression of RA. Previously, the association between HLA-DRB1*0404 allele and ACF has been described [19].

ACPAs isotype distribution does not expand during disease progression from the undifferentiated arthritis to RA and is relatively stable over time. In RA, the baseline ACPAs isotype profile was a significant predictor of disease severity, with more isotypes indicating a higher risk of radiographic damage [20]. Among ACPAs, anti-CCP has a superior diagnostic and prognostic value. Table 1 summarizes the diagnostic value of various ACPA assays [21–24]. Anti-CCP and IgA-RF predict the development of RA, with anti-CCP antibody having the highest predictive value [25]. RF (IgM, IgA isotypes) and anti-CCP associated with more severe disease indicated by more erosions and severe functional impairment. The presence of anti-MCV also predicted joint damage, and the strength of this prediction was at least as strong as for anti-CCP. Higher anti-MCV levels add prognostic information compared to their mere presence or absence [26].

Table 1 Diagnostic performance of various anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies assays in rheumatoid arthritis
Full size table

Novel serological markers

Recently, novel antibodies in RA patients have been described. For instance, anticarbamylated protein (anti-CarP) antibodies recognizing homocitrulline were detected in about 45% of RA patients and also, importantly, in up to 30% of ACPA-negative patients [27]. Homocitrulline is generated from a lysine residue following a reaction of cyanate. Importantly, in ACPA-negative patients, anti-CarP antibodies were associated with more severe radiographic progression [27]. Moreover, anti-CarP antibodies appear many years before the diagnosis of RA [28] and can predict the development of RA in arthralgia patients independent of anti-CCP antibodies [29]. Carbamylated fibrinogen or vimentin can serve as a target for anti-CarP antibodies. Overall, the sensitivity of anti-CarP is lower than ACPA; however, the simultaneous assessment of anti-CarP and ACPA can be very beneficial in identifying RA patients [27–29].

Using the cDNA phage display library, some novel autoantibodies were recently identified in early and seronegative RA patients with sensitivity ranging between 2 to 29% and specificity between 95 to 100%. These autoantibodies can be found in 44 to 67% ACPA negative RA patients [30]. The other group of novel serological markers identified by proteomic approach represents antibodies to PAD4 (peptidyl arginine deiminase 4) and BRAF (v raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1) catalytic domain open new avenues to further pinpoint ACPA-negative RA patients [3].

Conclusions

Despite many unanswered questions in the understanding of the mechanisms driving the immunological changes seen during the development of RA, there is evidence that systemic abnormalities defined as the presence of RA-related autoantibodies can occur several years before clinical symptoms appear. Serological biomarkers can be investigated as predictive factors in subjects that are likely to be at higher risk of developing RA, such as, for instance, first degree relatives of RA patients [30]. Simultaneous assessment of RFs along with various ACPA tests, and presumably with novel serological biomarkers, may be used in screening at the primary care level and may help to identify patients with early disease in subjects with symptoms without clinical arthritis and in those with undifferentiated arthritis or where the clinical judgment is doubtful [31]. In addition, combining positive US Doppler signal with clinical joint assessment can significantly improve certainty of diagnosis of RA in seronegative patients [6]. By revealing subclinical synovitis and radiographically undetected bone erosions, RA can be carefully explored with US especially in patients with early undifferentiated arthritis [32]. Therefore, the ACR/EULAR 2010 RA classification criteria [2] indicated that US may be used for confirmation of the clinical findings (joint involvement).

In conclusion, novel serological biomarkers along with joint ultrasound may provide additional benefit in diagnosis of RA, particularly in those with early and ACPA negative disease.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to manuscript preparation and critical revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Abbreviations

ACF:

Antibodies to citrullinated fibrinogen

ACPAs:

Anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies

ACR:

American College of Rheumatology

AKA:

Anti-keratin antibodies

anti-CarP:

Anti-carbamylated protein

APF:

Anti-perinuclear factor

BRAF:

V raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1

CCP:

cyclic citrullinated peptides

EULAR:

European League Against Rheumatism

HLA:

human leukocyte antigen

hnRNP:

Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein

Ig:

Immunoglobulin

MCV:

modified citrullinated vimentin

PAD4:

Peptidyl arginine deiminase 4

RA:

Rheumatoid arthritis

RFs:

Rheumatoid factors

US:

Ultrasound.

References

  1. 1.

    McInnes IB, Schett G: The pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2011, 365: 2205-2219. 10.1056/NEJMra1004965.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham CO, Birnbaum NS, Burmester GR, Bykerk VP, Cohen MD, Combe B, Costenbader KH, Dougados M, Emery P, Ferraccioli G, Hazes JM, Hobbs K, Huizinga TW, Kavanaugh A, Kay J, Kvien TK, Laing T, Mease P, Ménard HA, Moreland LW, Naden RL, Pincus T, Smolen JS, Stanislawska-Biernat E, Symmons D, et al: 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010, 69: 1580-1588. 10.1136/ard.2010.138461. Erratum in Ann Rheum Dis 2010, 69:1892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Trouw LA, Mahler M: Closing the serological gap: promising novel biomarkers for the early diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Autoimmun Rev. 2012, 12: 318-322. 10.1016/j.autrev.2012.05.007.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Colebatch AN, Edwards CJ, Østergaard M, van der Heijde D, Balint PV, D'Agostino MA, Forslind K, Grassi W, Haavardsholm EA, Haugeberg G, Jurik AG, Landewé RB, Naredo E, O'Connor PJ, Ostendorf B, Potocki K, Schmidt WA, Smolen JS, Sokolovic S, Watt I, Conaghan PG: EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging of the joints in the clinical management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013, 72: 804-814. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-203158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Filippucci E, Iagnocco A, Salaffi F, Cerioni A, Valesini G, Grassi W: Power Doppler sonography monitoring of synovial perfusion at wrist joints in rheumatoid patients treated with adalimumab. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006, 65: 1433-1437. 10.1136/ard.2005.044628.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Freeston JE, Wakefield RJ, Conaghan PG, Hensor EM, Stewart SP, Emery P: A diagnostic algorithm for persistence of very early inflammatory arthritis: the utility of power Doppler ultrasound when added to conventional assessment tools. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010, 69: 417-419. 10.1136/ard.2008.106658.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Wakefield RJ, D'Agostino MA, Naredo E, Buch MH, Iagnocco A, Terslev L, Ostergaard M, Backhaus M, Grassi W, Dougados M, Burmester GR, Saleem B, de Miguel E, Estrach C, Ikeda K, Gutierrez M, Thompson R, Balint P, Emery P: After treat-to-target: can a targeted ultrasound initiative improve RA outcomes?. Postgrad Med J. 2012, 88: 482-486. 10.1136/postgradmedj-2011-201048rep.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Scirè CA, Montecucco C, Codullo V, Epis O, Todoerti M, Caporali R: Ultrasonographic evaluation of joint involvement in early rheumatoid arthritis in clinical remission: power Doppler signal predicts short-term relapse. Rheumatology. 2009, 48: 1092-1097. 10.1093/rheumatology/kep171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Nielsen SF, Bojesen SE, Schnohr P, Nordestgaard BG: Elevated rheumatoid factor and long term risk of rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2012, 345: e5244-10.1136/bmj.e5244.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hassfeld W, Steiner G, Hartmuth K, Kolarz G, Scherak O, Graninger W, Thumb N, Smolen J: Demonstration of a new antinuclear antibody (anti-RA 33) that is highly specific for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1989, 32: 1515-1520. 10.1002/anr.1780321204.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Després N, Boire G, Lopez-Longo FJ, Ménard HA: The Sa system: a novel antigen-antibody system specific for rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1994, 21: 1027-1033.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    De Rooy DP, Willemze A, Mertens B, Huizinga TW, Van der Helm-van Mil AH: Can anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody-negative RA be subdivided into clinical subphenotypes?. Arthritis Res Ther. 2011, 13: R180-10.1186/ar3505.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    van Venrooij WJ, van Beers JJ, Pruijn GJ: Anti-CCP antibody, a marker for the early detection of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008, 1143: 268-285. 10.1196/annals.1443.013.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Klareskog L, Widhe M, Hermansson M, Ronnelid J: Antibodies to citrullinated proteins in arthritis: pathology and promise. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2008, 20: 300-305. 10.1097/BOR.0b013e3282fbd22a.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Szodoray P, Szabó Z, Kapitány A, Gyetvai A, Lakos G, Szántó S, Szücs G, Szekanecz Z: Anti-citrullinated protein/peptide autoantibodies in association with genetic and environmental factors as indicators of disease outcome in rheumatoid arthritis. Autoimmun Rev. 2010, 9: 140-143. 10.1016/j.autrev.2009.04.006.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Soós L, Szekanecz Z, Szabó Z, Fekete A, Zeher M, Horváth IF, Dankó K, Kapitány A, Végvári A, Sipka S, Szegedi G, Lakos G: Clinical evaluation of anti-mutated citrullinated vimentin by ELISA in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007, 34: 1658-1663.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    van Jaarsveld CH, ter Borg EJ, Jacobs JW, Schellekens GA, Gmelig-Meyling FH, van Booma-Frankfort C, de Jong BA, van Venrooij WJ, Bijlsma JW: The prognostic value of the antiperinuclear factor, anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies and rheumatoid factor in early rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 1999, 1: 689-697.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Vincent C, Nogueira L, Clavel C, Sebbag M, Serre G: Autoantibodies to citrullinated proteins: ACPA. Autoimmunity. 2005, 38: 17-24. 10.1080/08916930400022582.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Szekanecz Z, Soós L, Szabó Z, Fekete A, Kapitány A, Végvári A, Sipka S, Szücs G, Szántó S, Lakos G: Anti-citrullinated protein antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis: as good as it gets?. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2008, 34: 26-31. 10.1007/s12016-007-8022-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    van der Woude D, Syversen SW, van der Voort EI, Verpoort KN, Goll GL, van der Linden MP, van der Helm-van Mil AH, van der Heijde DM, Huizinga TW, Kvien TK, Toes RE: The ACPA isotype profile reflects long-term radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010, 69: 1110-1116. 10.1136/ard.2009.116384.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Debaugnies F, Servais G, Badot V, Noubouossie D, Willems D, Corazza F: Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies: a comparison of different assays for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol. 2013, 42: 108-114. 10.3109/03009742.2012.723746.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Caro-Oleas JL, Fernández-Suárez A, Reneses Cesteros S, Porrino C, Núñez-Roldán A, Wichmann SI: Evaluation of third generation anti-CCP antibodies in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis from undifferentiated polyarthritis after 4 years of follow-up. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2008, 26: 461-463.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Szekanecz Z, Szabó Z, Zeher M, Soós L, Dankó K, Horváth I, Lakos G: Superior performance of the CCP3.1 test compared to CCP2 and MCV in the rheumatoid factor-negative RA population. Immunol Res. 2013, 56: 439-443. 10.1007/s12026-013-8425-8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    van Venrooij WJ, van Beers JJ, Pruijn GJ: Anti-CCP antibodies: the past, the present and the future. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2011, 7: 391-398. 10.1038/nrrheum.2011.76.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Rantapää-Dahlqvist S, de Jong BA, Berglin E, Hallmans G, Wadell G, Stenlund H, Sundin U, van Venrooij WJ: Antibodies against cyclic citrullinated peptide and IgA rheumatoid factor predict the development of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003, 48: 2741-2749. 10.1002/art.11223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Syversen SW, Goll GL, van der Heijde D, Landewé R, Lie BA, Odegård S, Uhlig T, Gaarder PI, Kvien TK: Prediction of radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis and the role of antibodies against mutated citrullinated vimentin: results from a 10-year prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010, 69: 345-351. 10.1136/ard.2009.113092.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Shi J, Knevel R, Suwannalai P, van der Linden MP, Janssen GM, van Veelen PA, Levarht NE, van der Helm-van Mil AH, Cerami A, Huizinga TW, Toes RE, Trouw LA: Autoantibodies recognizing carbamylated proteins are present in sera of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and predict joint damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011, 108: 17372-17377. 10.1073/pnas.1114465108.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Shi J, van de Stadt LA, Levarht EW, Huizinga TW, Hamann D, van Schaardenburg D, Toes RE, Trouw LA: Anti-carbamylated protein (anti-CarP) antibodies precede the onset of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014, 73: 780-783. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204154.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Shi J, van de Stadt LA, Levarht EW, Huizinga TW, Toes RE, Trouw LA, van Schaardenburg D: Anti-carbamylated protein antibodies are present in arthralgia patients and predict the development of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2013, 65: 911-915. 10.1002/art.37830.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Somers K, Geusens P, Elewaut D, De Keyser F, Rummens JL, Coenen M, Blom M, Stinissen P, Somers V: Antigens identified by phage display, Novel autoantibody markers for early and seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. J Autoimmun. 2011, 36: 33-46. 10.1016/j.jaut.2010.10.003.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Bykerk VP: Strategies to prevent rheumatoid arthritis in high-risk patients. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2011, 23: 179-184.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Grassi W, Filippucci E: Rheumatoid arthritis: diagnosis of RA–we have a dream. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2013, 9: 202-204. 10.1038/nrrheum.2013.39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Dr. Šenolt was supported by a MHCR grant for conceptual development of research organization 023728.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Rheumatology, Prague, Czech Republic

    Ladislav Šenolt

  2. First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    Ladislav Šenolt

  3. Clinica Reumatologica, Scuola di Specializzazione in Reumatologia, Ancona, Italy

    Walter Grassi

  4. Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy

    Walter Grassi

  5. Institute of Immunology, Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, N-0027, Norway

    Peter Szodoray

Authors
  1. Ladislav Šenolt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Walter Grassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Szodoray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ladislav Šenolt.

Additional information

Competing interests

All authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Authors’ original file for figure 2

Authors’ original file for figure 3

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Šenolt, L., Grassi, W. & Szodoray, P. Laboratory biomarkers or imaging in the diagnostics of rheumatoid arthritis?. BMC Med 12, 49 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-49

Download citation

Keywords

  • Rheumatoid arthritis
  • Autoimmunity
  • Disease activity
  • Laboratory biomarkers
  • Ultrasound imaging

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us