Should ultrasound be used routinely in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis?

A growing body of evidence indicates the benefits of early diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and prompt treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDS) in terms of relieving symptoms, improving prognosis, and reducing long-term complications. There is however some controversy over the most beneficial method of imaging in providing accurate early diagnosis. Though current practice favours clinical and radiological assessment, this is increasingly supplemented by ultrasound techniques (and, to a lesser extent, CT and MRI scanning). While EULAR and ESSR favour the use of ultrasonography (US) as the first-line investigation in cases of suspected RA, a recent NICE review upholds the traditional place of plain film radiographs of hands and feet to detect erosions as early signs of synovitis. This review considers the evidence for US in the early diagnosis of RA and the case for it becoming the primary assessment modality in rheumatology clinics.

This paper aims to assess the current literature on the efficacy of ultrasonography in diagnosing early RA, by comparing US with alternative imaging modalities. The goal is to propose the most appropriate method of diagnosis to improve early initiation of DMARD treatment for optimum disease outcomes.

Searches for related studies and review articles were carried out using electronic databases and hand searches. Additional references were gleaned from the bibliographies of included papers. Related articles and pop-outs from PubMed were also used. The search was refined in PubMed, by only using reviews which were written in English and published in past 10 years and had full free text available.

This review confirms that US has a high level of sensitivity in diagnosing RA (and hence a low risk of missing cases of RA which might benefit from early treatment with DMARDs). It also has a high level of specificity (and hence a low risk of falsely diagnosing somebody with RA who may suffer adverse effects of DMARD therapy). US is already widely available and well accepted by clinicians and patients. It does not involve exposure to radiation and can be readily delivered by appropriately trained staff.

This review of relevant studies indicates that US should become accepted as the investigation with the most favourable balance of benefits to risks in the early diagnosis of RA. Given the continuing controversy surrounding studies of different imaging techniques in RA, further research into the diagnostic role of US in RA is indicated.