类风湿关节炎合并纤维肌痛简易分类标准的临床验证

doi:10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2022.02.013

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的: 验证类风湿关节炎(rheumatoid arthritis,RA)纤维肌痛(fibromyalgia,FM)简易分类标准(Pollard标准)在中国RA合并FM患者中诊断的敏感度和特异度,评估RA合并FM的临床特点。方法: 选择2018年12月—2019年6月在北京大学人民医院风湿免疫科门诊就诊的RA患者的病例资料进行回顾性分析,共入选病例202例,按照1990年美国风湿病学会(American College of Rheumatolgy, ACR)的FM分类标准诊断为FM的42例,将入组患者分为RA合并FM组(RA-FM组)42例和单纯RA组(RA组)160例。结果: 两组患者在一般人口学方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。Pollard标准的敏感度为95.2%,特异度为52.6%。伴有FM的RA患者(RA-FM组)DAS28评分(5.95 vs. 4.38, P=0.011)较不伴FM的患者高,疼痛关节数(tender joint counts,TJC)(16.5 vs. 4.5, P<0.01)更多。RA-FM组患者功能状态HAQ评分(1.24 vs. 0.66, P<0.001)及生活质量SF36评分(28.63 vs. 58.22,P<0.001)更差,疲劳症状较RA组常见(88.1% vs. 50.6%, P<0.001),焦虑(10 vs. 4, P<0.01)及抑郁评分(12 vs. 6, P<0.001)更高。两组ESR、CRP、晨僵时间、肿胀关节数差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论: Pollard标准在临床应用时敏感度较高,对于特异度还需要结合多方面因素综合考虑;RA-FM组患者功能状态更差,该组患者的DAS28评分可能会被高估;长时间未缓解的RA疾病活动应考虑合并FM的可能。

关键词: 类风湿关节炎, 纤维肌痛, 分类标准

Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Pollard’s classification criteria(2010) for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients withfibromyalgia (FM) in Chinese patients, and to assess the clinical features and psychological status of RA-FM patients in a real-world observational setting. Methods: Two hundred and two patients with rheumatoid arthritis were enrolled from the outpatients in Rheumatology and Immunology Department in Peking University People’s Hospital. All the patients were evaluated whether incorporating fibromyalgia translation occured using the 1990 American College of Rheumatolgy (ACR)-FM classification criteria. Forty two RA patients were concomitant with FM, while the other one hundred and sixty RA patients without FM were set as the control group. Results: There was no significant difference in general demography between the two groups (P>0.05). In this study, the Pollard’s classification criteria (2010) for RA-FM in Chinese patients had a high sensitivity of 95.2% and relatively low specificity of 52.6%. Compared with those patients without FM, RA patients with FM (RA-FM patients) had higher Disease Activity Scale in 28 joints (DAS-28) score (5.95 vs. 4.38, P=0.011) and much more 28-tender joint counts (TJC) (16.5 vs.4.5, P<0.001).RA-FM patients had worse Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score (1.24 vs. 0.66, P<0.001) and lower SF-36 (28.63 vs. 58.22, P<0.001). Fatigue was more common in RA-FM patients (88.1% vs. 50.6%,P<0.001) and the degree of fatigue was significantly increased in RA-FM patients (fatigue VAS 5.55 vs. 3.55, P<0.001). RA-FM patients also had higher anxiety (10 vs.4, P<0.001) and depression scores (12 vs.6, P<0.001). erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), morning stiffness time and 28-swollen joint counts (SJC) showed no difference between these two groups. Conclusion: The Pollard’s classification criteria (2010) for RA-FM are feasible in Chinese rheumatoid arthritis patients. The Pollard’s classification criteria is highly sensitive in clinical application, while the relativelylow specificity indicates that various factors need to be considered in combination. RA patients with FM result in higher disease activity,worse function aland psychological status. RA patients with FM also have poorer quality of life. DAS-28 scores may be overestimated in RA patients with FM. In a RA patient thatdoes not reach remission, the possibility of fibromyalgia should be con-sidered.

Key words: Rheumatoid arthritis, Fibromyalgia, Classification

中图分类号:

R593.22

高超,陈立红,王莉,姚鸿,黄晓玮,贾语博,刘田. 类风湿关节炎合并纤维肌痛简易分类标准的临床验证[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(2): 278-282.

GAO Chao,CHEN Li-hong,WANG Li,YAO Hong,HUANG Xiao-wei,JIA Yu-bo,LIU Tian. Validation of the Pollard’s classification criteria (2010) for rheumatoid arthritis patients with fibromyalgia[J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2022, 54(2): 278-282.

图/表 4

表1

表2

两组患者临床和免疫特征比较"

Feature	RA (n=160)	RA-FM (n=42)	P
DAS28, $x -$ ±s	4.38±1.37	5.95±1.21	0.011
TJC, M(P₂₅, P₂₅)	4.5 (1, 8)	16.5 (10, 24)	<0.001
SJC, M(P₂₅, P₂₅)	1 (0, 3.75)	2 (0.75, 4)	0.470
Morning stiffness/min, M(P₂₅, P₂₅)	15 (0, 60)	25 (3.75, 99)	0.062
CRP/(mg/dL), M(P₂₅, P₂₅)	14.89 (4.10, 36.14)	27.86 (2.95, 54.68)	0.152
ESR/(mm/h), M(P₂₅, P₂₅)	43.50 (17.00, 70.75)	50.50 (16.75, 76.50)	0.518

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 18

[1]	Clauw DJ. Fibromyalgia: A clinical review[J]. JAMA, 2014, 311(15):1547-1555. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.3266
[2]	Wolfe F, Ross K, Anderson J, et al. The prevalence and characteristics of fibromyalgia in the general population[J]. Arthritis Rheum, 1995, 38(1):19-28. doi: 10.1002/art.v38:1
[3]	Wolfe F, Clauw DJ, Fitzcharles MA, et al. Fibromyalgia criteria and severity scales for clinical and epidemiological studies: A modification of the ACR preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia[J]. J Rheumatol, 2011, 38(6):1113-1122.
[4]	Wolfe F, Häuser W, Hassett AL, et al. The development of fibromyalgia: Ⅰ examination of rates and predictors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)[J]. Pain, 2011, 152(2):291-299. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.09.027
[5]	Vincent A, Lahr BD, Wolfe F, et al. Prevalence of fibromyalgia: A population-based study in olmsted county, minnesota, utilizing the rochester epidemiology project[J]. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken), 2013, 65(5):786-792. doi: 10.1002/acr.21896 pmid: 23203795
[6]	Joharatnam N, McWilliams DF, Wilson D, et al. A cross-sectional study of pain sensitivity, disease-activity assessment, mental health, and fibromyalgia status in rheumatoid arthritis[J]. Arthritis Res Ther, 2015, 17(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s13075-015-0525-5
[7]	Kılıçarslan A, Yurdakul FG, Bodur H. Diagnosing fibromyalgia in rheumatoid arthritis: The importance of assessing disease activity[J]. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil, 2018, 64(2):133-139.
[8]	Abbasi L, Haidri FR. Fibromyalgia complicating disease management in rheumatoid arthritis[J]. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak, 2014, 24(6):424-427.
[9]	Pollard LC, Kingsley GH, Choy EH, et al. Fibromyalgic rheu-matoid arthritis and disease assessment[J]. Rheumatology (Oxford), 2010, 49(5):924-928. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kep458 pmid: 20100795
[10]	Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Yunus MB, et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia[J]. Arthritis Rheum, 1990, 33(2):160-172. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1529-0131
[11]	Mu R, Li C, Zhu JX, et al. National survey of knowledge, attitude and practice of fibromyalgia among rheumatologists in China[J]. Int J Rheum Dis, 2013, 16(3):258-263. doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.12055
[12]	Queiroz LP. Worldwide epidemiology of fibromyalgia[J]. Curr Pain Headache Rep, 2013, 17(8):356. doi: 10.1007/s11916-013-0356-5
[13]	Wolfe F, Hauser W. Fihromyalgia diagnosis and diagnostic criteria[J]. Ann Med, 2011, 43(7):495-502. doi: 10.3109/07853890.2011.595734
[14]	Wolfe F, Clauw DJ, Fitzcharles MA, et al. 2016 Revisions to the 2010/2011 fibromyalgia diagnostic critera[J]. Semin Arthritis Rheum, 2016, 46(3):319-329. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2016.08.012
[15]	Kim H, Cui J, Frits M, et al. Fibromyalgia and the prediction of two-year changes in functional status in rheumatoid arthritis patients[J]. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken), 2017, 69(12):1871-1877. doi: 10.1002/acr.v69.12
[16]	Gist AC, Guymer EK, Eades LE, et al. Fibromyalgia remains a significant burden in rheumatoid arthritis patients in Australia[J]. Int J Rheum Dis, 2018, 21(3):639-646. doi: 10.1111/apl.2018.21.issue-3
[17]	Macfarlane GJ, Kronisch C, Dean LE, et al. EULAR revised recommendations for the management of fibromyalgia[J]. Ann Rheum Dis, 2017, 76(2):318-328. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209724 pmid: 27377815
[18]	焦娟, 贾园, 吴庆军, 等. 解读2017年欧洲抗风湿病联盟纤维肌痛治疗管理建议[J]. 中华风湿病学杂志, 2018, 22(1):68-69.

相关文章 15

[1]	张璐,胡小红,陈澄,蔡月明,王庆文,赵金霞. 类风湿关节炎初治患者颈椎失稳情况及临床特征[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(6): 1049-1054.
[2]	罗靓,霍文岗,张钦,李春. 类风湿关节炎合并角膜溃疡的临床特点和相关因素分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(6): 1032-1036.
[3]	钟华,徐丽玲,白明欣,苏茵. 类风湿关节炎患者趋化因子CXCL9和CXCL10在骨侵蚀中的作用[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(6): 1026-1031.
[4]	娄雪,廖莉,李兴珺,王楠,刘爽,崔若玫,徐健. 类风湿关节炎患者外周血TWEAK基因启动子区甲基化状态及其表达[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(6): 1020-1025.
[5]	曹迪,王燕,王柳青,孙晓麟,黄妃,孟洋,任丽丽,张学武. 血浆Dickkopf-1在类风湿关节炎患者中的表达及其与外周血T细胞亚群的相关性[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(2): 255-260.
[6]	赵凯,常志芳,王志华,庞春艳,王永福. 基因沉默肽基精氨酸脱亚胺酶4的表达对胶原诱导关节炎小鼠肺间质病变的影响[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(2): 235-239.
[7]	钟剑球,曾沛英,王庆文. 类风湿关节炎合并淋巴水肿2例及文献回顾[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(6): 1157-1161.
[8]	张警丰,叶修玲,段萌,周小利,姚中强,赵金霞. 抗核抗体阳性类风湿关节炎的临床和实验室检查特点[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(6): 1023-1028.
[9]	唐果,龙丽,韩雅欣,彭清,刘佳君,尚华. 类风湿关节炎合并结核感染的临床特点及相关因素[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(6): 1029-1033.
[10]	张璐,胡小红,王庆文,蔡月明,赵金霞,刘湘源. 类风湿关节炎合并颈椎失稳的人群分布及临床特征[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(6): 1034-1039.
[11]	陈家丽,金月波,王一帆,张晓盈,李静,姚海红,何菁,李春. 老年发病类风湿关节炎的临床特征及其心血管疾病危险因素分析:一项大样本横断面临床研究[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(6): 1040-1047.
[12]	彭嘉婧,刘田. 类风湿关节炎合并色素沉着绒毛结节性滑膜炎1例及文献回顾[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(6): 1135-1139.
[13]	罗采南,李正芳,武丽君,陈海娟,杨春梅,徐文晖,刘小玲,唐薇,乔平,热娜·白合提亚. 类风湿关节炎不同分类标准的多中心临床比较[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(5): 897-901.
[14]	竺红,赵丽娟,周艳,陈瑶. 抗氨基甲酰化蛋白抗体在类风湿关节炎合并肺间质病变早期诊断中的价值[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(6): 1003-1007.
[15]	张晓英,靳家扬,何菁,甘雨舟,陈家丽,赵晓珍,刘佳佳,尤旭杰,李雪,郭建萍,李小峰,李静,李茹,栗占国. 类风湿关节炎患者风湿病家族史特征及临床意义[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(3): 439-444.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Feature	RA (n=160)	RA-FM (n=42)	P
Age/years, M(P₂₅,P₇₅)	64 (56, 71)	62.5 (56, 71.5)	0.779
Disease duration/years, M(P₂₅,P₇₅)	9 (4, 17.8)	11.5 (2, 21)	0.617
Gender, n(%)			0.567
Male	33 (20.6)	7 (16.7)
Female	127 (79.4)	35 (83.3)
Smoking, n(%)	144/160 (90.0)	37/42 (88.1)	0.939
Education, n(%)			0.584
Primary	26 (16.3)	9 (21.4)
Junior	47 (29.4)	11 (26.2)
Senior	41 (25.6)	14 (33.3)
Higher education	46 (28.8)	8 (19.0)
Race, n(%)			0.755
Han	152 (95.0)	41 (97.6)
Others	8 (5.0)	1 (2.4)
Marital status, n(%)			0.536
Married	155 (96.9)	42 (100.0)
Unmarried	5 (3.1)	0 (0)
Occupation, n(%)			0.792
Employed	16 (10.0)	2 (4.8)
Retired	113 (70.6)	30 (71.4)
Other	31 (19.4)	10 (23.8)

Feature	RA (n=160)	RA-FM (n=42)	P
HAQ, M(P₂₅, P₂₅)	0.66 (0.20, 0.90)	1.24 (0.26, 1.50)	<0.001
VAS/cm, M(P₂₅, P₂₅)	3 (2, 5)	5 (3, 7)	0.01
SF36, M(P₂₅, P₂₅)	58.22 (47.26, 73.17)	28.63 (19.80, 39.97)	<0.001

Feature	RA (n=160)	RA-FM (n=42)	P-value
Anxiety	4 (1, 7)	10 (8, 12)	<0.001
Depressed	6 (3, 8)	12 (10, 15)	<0.001
Fatigue	81/160	37/42	<0.001
Fatigue VAS	3.55 (1.00, 4.73)	5.55 (4.61, 5.91)	<0.001