Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on June 8, 2004
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rheumatology 2004; 43: 819-820
Rheumatology Vol. 43 No. 7 © British Society for Rheumatology 2004; all rights reserved
Editorial |
Do we still miss the chance of effectively treating early rheumatoid arthritis? New answers from a new study
Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, CharitéUniversity Medicine Berlin, Humboldt-University and Free University of Berlin, Schumannstrasse 20/21, D-10117 Berlin, Germany
Correspondence to: G. R. Burmester. E-mail: gerd.burmester@charite.de
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
The modern differentiation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from other joint diseases still dates from as early as 1907 [1]. As there is no distinctive feature in the early phase of the disease, it is unknown when rheumatoid arthritis really develops as a separate entity. Experience from early arthritis registers and from specialized early arthritis clinics has shown that the classification criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) from 1987 are not, or not sufficiently, able to distinguish early stages of RA from other forms of joint inflammation [2, 3]. Indeed, use as a diagnostic tool has never been claimed for the ACR classification criteria at all. Therefore, diagnosis of RA is generally based upon the opinion of the rheumatologist who may additionally take the ACR classification criteria into account. Yet, the earlier a diagnosis is attempted the more atypical symptomatic patterns are present, and