Main Article Content

Abstract

Background : In recent years, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) uses a “treat to targetâ€Â  treatment strategy. This strategy requires a valid and accurate tool for assessing disease activity. The most widely used tool is DAS28, which was developed from DAS with the omission of ankle and foot joints. There has been many critization about
the accuracy of DAS28 in classifying the state of RA disease. Most importantly, when an active disease state was misclassified as an inactive state (false negative)
which lead to under treat and subsequently to disability. The difference between DAS28 and DAS lies mainly in the exclusion of ankle and foot joints, thus DAS28-
squeeze, a new and simple tool has been proposed. It comprises the same 28 joints in DAS28 added with a sqeeze test on both metatarsophalangeal joints. However, this new tool has never been validated with any imaging techniques.

Objective : To assess the diagnostic values of DAS28 and DAS28-squeeze.

Methods : This study comprised a cross-sectional diagnostic study, using Power Doppler sonography as a standard reference in evaluating the diagnostic value of
DAS28 and DAS28-squeeze. This study uses the most sringent sonography criteria of active disease which is an active Doppler signal with a moderate synovial hypertrophy on B-mode.

Results : Over the study period, 56 subjects underwent diagnostic tests using DAS28, DAS28-squeeze and Power Doppler sonography. There were 4 false negative
cases in DAS28 and 1 case in DAS28-squeeze. The sensitivities of DAS28 and DAS28-squeeze to identify active disease using Power Doppler sonography as reference standard were 73.3% (95%CI ± 11.59) and 93.3% (95%CI ± 6.55), respectively. While the specificities of DAS28 and DAS28-squeeze were 36.6% (95%CI ± 12.62) and 34.1% (95%CI ± 12.42), respectively. Furthermore the negative likelihood ratio
of DAS28 and DAS28-squeeze were 0.73 and 0.19, respectively.

Conclusion : This study is the first to validate DAS28- squeeze using imaging techniques. From this study the false negative rate of DAS28-squeeze is lower than
DAS28. DAS28-squeeze has a better sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio than DAS28 in identifying RA disease state.

Keywords : Rheumatoid Arthritis, DAS28, DAS28-squeeze, treat to target, Power Doppler, squeeze test

Article Details

How to Cite
Santosa, D., Hidayat, R., Prasetyo, M., & Nugroho, P. (2018). Diagnostic values of DAS28 and DAS28-squeeze in evaluating Rheumatoid Arthritis disease. Indonesian Journal of Rheumatology, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.37275/ijr.v8i2.54

References

  1. de Jong PH, Weel AE, de Man YA, Huisman AM, Gerards AH, van Krugten MV, et al. To squeeze or not to squeeze, that is the question! Optimizing the disease activity score in 28 joints by adding the squeeze test of metatarsophalangeal joints in early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2012;64(10):3095-3101.
  2. Farheen K, Agarwal SK. Assessment of disease activity and treatment outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. J Manag Care Pharm 2011;17(9-b):S9-13.
  3. Alvarado PM, Laiz A. Is DAS a profitable score to be used for rheumatoid arthritis patient follow up? Reumatol Clin. 2011;7(5):336-338.
  4. Chau LS-Y, Mok C-C. Assessment of disease activity and functional outcome in rheumatoid arthritis. Hong Kong Bulletin on Rheumatic Diseases. 2002;2(1):10-14.
  5. Gardiner P. Misreading disease activity with DAS28 [Internet]. Norwalk: Rheumatology network; March 17, 2014 [cited 2015]. Available from: www.rheumatologynetwork.com.
  6. Landewe R, van der Heijde D, van der Linden S, Boers M. Twenty-eightjoint counts invalidate the DAS28 remission definition owing to the omission of the lower extremity joints: a comparison with the original DAS remission. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:637-641.
  7. Borman P, Ayhan F, Tuncay F, Sahin M. Foot problems in a group of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An unmet need for foot care. The Open Rheumatology Journal. 2012;6:290-295.
  8. van der Leeden M, Steultjens MPM, Ursum J, Dahmen R, Roorda LD, Schaardenburg Dv, et al. Prevalence and course of forefoot impairments and walking disability in the first eight years of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2008;59(11):1596-1602.
  9. Siddle H, Redmond A, Wakefield R, Hodgson R, Grainger A, Pickles D, et al. Prevalence of MTP joint involvement in the painful forefoot of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2010;3 (Suppl 1):O23.
  10. Wiesinger T, Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Stamm T. Compression test (Gaenslen’s Squeeze Test) positivity, joint tenderness, and disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care & Research 2013;65(4):653-657.
  11. Backhaus M, Ohrndorf S, Kellner H, Strunk J, Backhaus T, Hartung W, et al. evaluation of a novel 7-joint ultrasound score in daily rheumatologic practice: A pilot project. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2009;61(9):1194-1201.
  12. Balsa A, Miguel Ed, Castillo C, Peiteado D, Martın-Mola E. Superiority of SDAI over DAS-28 in assessment of remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients using power Doppler ultrasonography as a gold standard. Rheumatology 2010;49:683-690.
  13. Koski J, Saarakkala S, Helle M, Hakulinen U, Heikkinen J, Hermunen H. Power Doppler ultrasonography and synovitis: correlating ultrasound imaging with histopathological findings and evaluating the performance of ultrasound equipments. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:1590-1595.
  14. Doron II, Michael ER. Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Wrist. Hospital for Joint Diseases 2003-2004;61(3 & 4):179-185.
  15. Elfattach H, Houari F, Addou O, Maaroufi M, Tizniti S. Sonographic appearance of chronic inflammatory rheumatism [Poster in ECR 2013 Congress]. European Society of Radiology; 2014. DOI: 10.1594/ ecr2013/C-2237
  16. Filippucci E, Salaffi F, Carotti M, Grassi W. Doppler ultrasound imaging techniques for assessment of synovial inflammation. Reports in Medical Imaging 2013;6:83-91.
  17. Semerano L, Gutierrez M, Falgarone G, Filippucci E, Guillot X, Boissier M-C, et al. Diurnal variation of power Doppler in metacarpophalangeal joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a preliminary study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70(9): 1699-1700