| Literature DB >> 27628666 |
Ana K Romero-Guzmán1, Víctor M Menchaca-Tapia1, Irazú Contreras-Yáñez1, Virginia Pascual-Ramos2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2004, we initiated an inception cohort of patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Hand function was incorporated into evaluations from 2014 onward. The objectives were to examine hand function in our cohort, compare hand function with function in healthy controls and determine the factors associated with impaired function.Entities:
Keywords: Disease activity; Musculoskeletal physiological processes; Rheumatoid arthritis
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27628666 PMCID: PMC5024415 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1246-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Position for grip strength and pinch measures
HF evaluation in controls, patients in remission and patients with disease activity
| Variablesa | Controls ( | Patients in remission ( | Patients with disease activity ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| MHQ | 98.9 (95.5–100) | 92.5 (83.3–97.7)* | 65 (54.5–82.4)* |
| DASH | 0 (0–1) | 0.8 (0–6.7) | 22.5 (5.4–41.5)* |
| Grip strengthb | 22.3 (19.1–26.5) | 18.7 (13.7–23)* | 10.7 (7.5–15.3)* |
| Tip pinchb | 4.5 (3.9–5.4) | 3.8 (3.2–4.5)* | 3 (2.2–3.3)* |
| Key pinchb | 7.1 (6–8) | 6.3 (5.3–7.3) | 4.8 (3.7–5.8)* |
| Palmar pinchb | 6 (4.9–7) | 5 (4–6.2)* | 3.7 (2.5–4.6)* |
MHQ Michigan hand outcome questionnaire, DASH Disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure
*p ≤ 0.005 vs. controls
aData are presented as the median (Q25-Q75)
bKg
Comparison of the MHQ domains between controls and RA patients in remission
| Overall hand Functiona | Activities of Daily livinga | Paina | Worka | Aestheticsa | Satisfactiona | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Controls | 100 (98–100) | 100 (100–100) | 0 (0–0) | 100 (100–100) | 100 (93.8–100) | 100 (94–100) |
| Patients in remission | 95 (75–100)* | 100 (100–100) | 10 (0–30)* | 100 (95–100)* | 93.8 (75–100)* | 91.7 (75–199)* |
Data are presented as the median (Q25-Q75)
MHQ Michigan hand outcome questionnaire
*p ≤ 0.05
aMHQ domains
Comparison of the demographic and disease characteristics between RA patients with/without HF within the normal range according to patient-reported outcomes (MHQ and DASH)
| Characteristics | MHQ-NR, | MHQ below NR, | DASH-NR, | DASH above NR, | p1/p2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female gender, N° (%) | 65 (85.5) | 59 (93.7) | 99 (86.8) | 25 (100) | 0.17/0.07 |
| Age at hand function evaluationa | 42.7 ± 12.6 | 45.7 ± 13.6 | 42.5 ± 13.4 | 51.2 ± 8.8 | 0.18/0.002 |
| Years of scholarshipa | 11.4 ± 3.6 | 10.5 ± 4 | 11.2 ± 3.7 | 10.1 ± 4.4 | 0.15/0.19 |
| Disease duration, yearsb | 7.5 (3–10) | 6 (2–9) | 7 (3–10) | 4 (0–8) | 0.17/0.007 |
| N° (%) of patients with RF | 63 (82.9) | 57 (90.5) | 97 (85.1) | 23 (92) | 0.22/0.53 |
| N° (%) of patients with ACCP | 69 (90.8) | 56 (90.3) | 102 (90.3) | 23 (92) | 1/1 |
| DAS28b | 1.5 (1–2.1) | 3 (1.8–4.5) | 1.7 (1.1–2.4) | 4.4 (3–6) | 0.000/0.00 |
| N° (%) of patients with erosions | 29 (38.2) | 26 (41.3) | 46 (40.4) | 9 (36) | 0.73/0.82 |
| N° of comorbidities/patientb | 2 (1–3) | 1 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–4) | 0.55/0.56 |
| N° (%) of patients with corticosteroids | 41 (53.9) | 39 (61.9) | 64 (56.1) | 16 (64) | 0.39/0.51 |
| N° of DMARDs/patientb | 1 (1–2) | 2 (2–2) | 2 (1–2) | 2 (2–2) | 0.000/0.02 |
RF rheumatoid factor, ACCP antibodies to cyclic citrullinated peptides, MHQ Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire, DASH Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure, NR normal range, p1 MHQ-NR score vs. MHQ score below NR, and p2 DASH-NR score vs. DASH score above NR
aMean ± SD
bMedian (Q25-Q75)
Logistic regression models associated with impaired pinch and grip strength in the RA female subpopulation
| Tip pinch | Key pinch | Palmar pinch | Grip strength | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAS28 | ß = 1.9 | ß = 2.2 | ß = 2 | ß = 2.3 |
| Comorbidity/patient | ß = 1.4 |
CI Confidence interval; all p ≤ 0.001
a95%CI
Fig. 2ROC curves: cut-off for DAS 28 to predict the MHQ-NR and DASH-NR scores, pinch and grip strength values within normal ranges
Fig. 3Correlation between changes in the DAS28 and MHQ (baseline to one year follow-up)