Open Access

Transforming growth factor β 869C/T and interleukin 6 -174G/C polymorphisms relate to the severity and progression of bone-erosive damage detected by ultrasound in rheumatoid arthritis

  • Fulvia Ceccarelli1Email author,
  • Carlo Perricone1,
  • Martina Fabris2,
  • Cristiano Alessandri1,
  • Annamaria Iagnocco1,
  • Cinzia Fabro2,
  • Elena Pontarini2,
  • Salvatore De Vita2 and
  • Guido Valesini1
Contributed equally
Arthritis Research & Therapy201113:R111

Received: 15 October 2010

Accepted: 8 July 2011

Published: 8 July 2011



Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) and IL-6 genes (respectively, 869C/T and -174G/C) have been associated with radiographic severity of bone-erosive damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) is more sensitive than radiography in detecting bone erosion. We analyzed the association between TGF-β 869C/T and IL-6 -174G/C SNPs and bone-erosive damage, evaluated by US, in a cohort of patients with severely active RA.


Seventy-seven patients were enrolled before beginning anti-TNF treatment. Disease activity was measured using the disease activity score in 28 joints, and the clinical response was evaluated according to the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria. Rheumatoid factor (RF) and anticitrullinated protein/peptide antibodies (ACPAs) were detected. The 869C/T TGF-β and -174G/C IL-6 SNPs were analyzed by PCR amplification. US was performed to assess the bone surfaces of metacarpophalengeal (MCP), proximal interphalangeal (PIP) and metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints by obtaining multiplanar scans. According to the number of erosions per joint, a semiquantitative score ranging from 0 to 3 was calculated in each anatomical site to obtain a MCP total erosion score (TES), a PIP TES and a MTP TES, all ranging from 0 to 30, and a global patient TES calculated as the sum of these scores (range, 0 to 90).


Patients carrying the TGF-β 869TT genotype showed a statistically significant lower MTP TES than those with the CC or CT genotype (mean MTP TES ± standard deviation for 869TT 6.3 ± 5.7 vs. 869CC/CT 11.7 ± 7.8; P = 0.011). Interestingly, patients with the TT genotype showed dichotomous behavior that was dependent on autoantibody status. In the presence of ACPAs and/or RF, the TT genotype was associated with lower erosion scores at all anatomical sites compared with the CC and CT genotypes. Conversely, the same 869TT patients showed higher erosion scores in the absence of ACPAs or RF.


In RA patients, TGF-β 869C/T SNPs could influence the bone-erosive damage as evaluated by US. The serological autoantibody status (ACPAs and RF) can modulate this interaction.


Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic inflammatory disease affecting primarily the joints. Its prevalence is approximately 0.5% to 1% in the industrialized countries [1]. The genetic background of patients with RA is responsible for at least part of the disease susceptibility and phenotype as demonstrated by twin and family studies. The human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) locus is strongly associated with the disease, accounting for approximately one-third of the genetic component of RA susceptibility [2]. Thus, other non-HLA genes may play a role in RA disease development, and previous research has focused on genes encoding for cytokines in key pathogenetic pathways. Transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) is a modulator of the immune response in RA. The effects exerted by this cytokine are midway between pro- and anti-inflammatory, depending on several, mostly unveiled, factors. TGF-β promotes the differentiation of leukocytes while inhibiting the proliferation of T lymphocytes and the activation of monocytes and/or macrophages [3]. Recently, three independent study groups simultaneously discovered that if TGF-β is displaced in an inflammatory milieu, it might act synergistically with IL-6 to induce the differentiation of naive T cells into Th17 cells [46]. This cell lineage is characterized by the production of IL-17, a proinflammatory cytokine associated with joint inflammation, osteoclastogenesis and the development of bone-erosive damage [7]. IL-6 is one of the main determinants of inflammation in RA. Indeed, it promotes the synthesis of acute phase reactants by the liver, can regulate inflammatory and/or immune pathways and modulate bone metabolism and endocrine function [8].

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the TGF-β and IL-6 genes (869C/T and -174G/C, respectively) have been associated with RA susceptibility and radiographic severity of bone-erosive damage [913]. Nowadays, conventional radiography is considered a well-established imaging technique for identifying progressive joint damage. However, musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) is more sensitive in the detection of soft-tissue lesions and bone erosion [14].

The first aim of our study was to analyze whether TGF-β 869C/T and IL-6 -174G/C are associated with bone-erosive damage on the basis of US evaluation in a cohort of RA patients starting anti-TNF treatment. A secondary aim was to assess whether these SNPs could influence US bone erosion progression after six months of anti-TNF therapy.

Materials and methods

Seventy-seven patients with established RA diagnosed according to the 1987 revised American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria [15], were enrolled at the Rheumatology Unit of Sapienza University of Rome. Patients' diagnoses were confirmed according to the recently published European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR 2010 criteria [16]. The patients started anti-TNF therapy with either subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg every other week (n = 12) (Humira; Abbott Laboratories Ltd, Vanwall Business Park, Vanwall Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK) or subcutaneous etanercept 50 mg once per week (n = 65) (Enbrel; Wyeth Europa Ltd., Huntercombe Lane South, Taplow, Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK) for severely active disease refractory to conventional therapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The patients were studied before anti-TNF treatment was started (baseline = T0) and at three and six months after initiation of anti-TNF therapy (T3 and T6, respectively). DMARD and glucocorticoid doses were maintained at a stable level during follow-up. The local ethical committee approved the study, which was performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki criteria, and all patients provided their written informed consent for participation in the study.

Clinical evaluation

All patients were evaluated by the same rheumatologist (FC). Data were collected and entered into a standardized, computerized, electronically filled-in form as previously described [17]. Data included patient demographics, date of diagnosis, comorbidities and previous and concomitant medications. The clinical evaluation included a count of swollen and tender joints and the patient's and physician's global disease assessment based on a visual analogue scale (VAS; range, 0 to 100 mm). Disease activity was measured according to the disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28), and the clinical response was evaluated according to the EULAR response criteria [18]. The patients were asked to fill in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) [19].

Laboratory analysis

Blood samples were obtained from all subjects, and genomic DNA and sera were collected using standard protocols and stored at -70°C until use. Rheumatoid factor (RF) (normal value < 17 IU/mL) (Behring, Marburg, Germany) and anticitrullinated protein/peptide antibodies (ACPAs) (normal value < 5 IU/mL) (Axis-Shield plc, Dundee, UK) were detected by ELISA according to the manufacturers' instructions. For each patient, we also measured the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (normal value < 20 mm/hour) by using the Westergen method, as well as the C-reactive protein level (normal value < 5 mg/dL).


DNA was extracted from ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-treated peripheral blood using an automated methodology (Maxwell 16; Promega, Madison, WI, USA) and dedicated kits (Maxwell 16 Blood DNA Purification Kit; Promega). The 869C/T SNP was analyzed by PCR amplification and digestion with a site-specific restriction enzyme in accordance with previously reported methods [13]. The forward and reverse primers were 5'-TTCCCTCGAGGCCCTCCTA-3' and 5'-GCCGCAGCTTGGACAGGATC-3', and the PCR amplification protocol was composed of 35 cycles comprising three steps each: 75 seconds at 96°C, 75 seconds at 62°C and 75 seconds at 73°C. PCR products were digested with MspA1I (New England BioLabs, Ipswich, MA, US) and run on a 3% ethidium bromide-stained agarose gel.

The -174G/C IL-6 promoter SNP was analyzed by PCR amplification and digestion with a site-specific restriction enzyme using previously reported methods [20]. The forward and reverse primers were 5'-TGACTTCAGCTTTACTCTTGT-3' and 5'-CTGATTGGAAACCTTATTAAG-3', and the PCR amplification protocol was composed of 39 cycles comprising three steps each: one minute at 95°C, one minute at 55°C and one minute at 72°C. PCR products were digested with NlaIII (New England BioLabs, Ipswich, MA, US) and run on a 3.5% ethidium bromide-stained agarose gel.

Musculoskeletal ultrasound assessment

US imaging was performed by using a MyLab70 XVG machine (Esaote S.p.A., Florence, Italy) equipped with a 6- to 18-MHz linear probe. By using a fixed 18-MHz frequency, bone surfaces of metacarpophalangeal (MCP), proximal interphalangeal (PIP) and metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints were studied on multiplanar scans in accordance with the EULAR US guidelines [21]. We chose these joints because previous reports have shown that bone erosion in RA may preferentially develop in the small joints of the feet and hands at early stages of the disease [22]. Gel was applied to the skin to provide an acoustic interface. The first through the fifth MCP joints of both hands, the first interphalangeal and the second through fifth PIP joints of both hands, and the first through fifth MTP joints of both feet were scanned. Each joint was scanned in both the longitudinal and transverse planes from the medial to lateral sides on both volar and dorsal aspects to enable maximum coverage of the joint surface area. To increase the acoustic window or access of the transducer between the joints of specific fingers, the fingers were splayed and then made into a fist. The scans were obtained independently on the same day by two rheumatologists (FC and CP) trained and experienced in sonography. Each sonographer was blinded to the sonographic findings of the other observer, but not to the diagnosis. Bone erosion was assessed according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT) definitions [23]. Based on the number of erosions per joint, a semiquantitative score ranging from 0 to 3 was applied (grade 0 = no erosion, grade 1 = one erosion, grade 2 = two erosions and grade 3 = at least three erosions). The sum of the scores per joint in articulations from the same anatomical site gave the MCP, PIP and MTP total erosion score (TES) (MCP TES, PIP TES and MTP TES, respectively; range, 0 to 30). A global patient TES was obtained by calculating the sum of these scores (range, 0 to 90). All scores were the means ± standard deviations (SDs) of the scores obtained by the independent evaluation of the two sonographers.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 13.0 software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Comparisons of gene and genotype frequencies between the groups were performed by using contingency tables and Pearson's χ2 test. Corrections were made where necessary for the sample size (Fisher's exact test). Normally distributed variables were summarized using the means (± SD), and non-normally distributed variables were expressed as medians and interquartile ranges. The comparisons between nonparametric variables were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance was applied to evaluate the comparisons between multiple groups. The Bonferroni correction was adopted (Pc). Pearson's and Spearman's tests were used to perform the correlation analysis. Interobserver reproducibility was determined using κ statistics, and κ values were evaluated according to the method of Landis and Koch [24]. All the P values were two-tailed, and P < 0.05 was considered significant.


Demographics, clinical and laboratory features

The demographics and the clinical and laboratory features of the 77 RA patients are given in Table 1. At the time of study entry, our patients showed moderately to severely active disease (mean DAS28 (± SD) 5.2 ± 1.2) and moderate functional disability (mean HAQ (± SD) 1.26 ± 0.8). Fifty-eight patients (75.3%) were ACPA-positive, while 61 (79.2%) were RF-positive. Concerning concomitant treatment for RA, 48 patients (62.3%) were taking corticosteroids and 53 (68.8%) were being treated with at least one DMARD.
Table 1

Clinical, laboratory and ultrasonographic characteristics of the 77 enrolled RA patients at study entrya





   Males/females, n (%)

10 (13)/67 (87)

   Mean age, years (± SD)

55.9 ± 14.3

   Mean disease duration, months (± SD)

119.2 ± 93.6

   Caucasian, n (%)

67 (87)

   Hispanic, n (%)

9 (11.7)

   African, n (%)

1 (1.3)

Laboratory results


   RF-positive, n (%)

61 (79.2)

   ACPA-positive, n (%)

58 (75.3)

   Mean ESR, mm/hour (± SD)

31.8 ± 24.7

Clinical status (± SD)


   Mean DAS28 score

5.2 ± 1.2

   Mean HAQ score

1.26 ± 0.8

Concomitant treatment


   Corticosteroids, n (%)

48 (62.3)

DMARDs, n (%)



37 (48.0)


16 (20.8)


15 (19.5)


9 (11.7)

Mean US results (± SD)


   Overall patient TES

33.4 ± 21.9


13.2 ± 8.1


9.7 ± 8.1


10.4 ± 8

aACPA: anticitrullinated protein/peptide antibody; DAS28: disease activity score in 28 joints; DMARD: disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; HAQ: Health Assessment Questionnaire; MCP: metacarpophalangeal; MTP: metatarsophalangeal; PIP: proximal interphalangeal; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; RF: rheumatoid factor; SD: standard deviation; TES: total erosion score; US: musculoskeletal ultrasound.

Ultrasonographic evaluation

All the evaluated patients showed the presence of erosions (patient TES range, 2 to 90). The mean US erosion scores at baseline (T0) are given in Table 1. MCP joints showed a significantly higher number of erosions compared with the PIP and the MTP joints (P = 0.005 and P = 0.03, respectively). Considering the erosive damage according to ACPA status, autoantibody-positive patients showed higher patient TES, although these scores were not statistically significant, compared with the ACPA-negative patients (mean ± SD 36.7 ± 23.4 vs. 24.4 ± 17.7; P = NS). Analogously, RF-positive patients showed higher patient TES compared with RF-negative patients (mean ± SD 35.6 ± 23.2 vs. 28.1 ± 16.4; P = NS). Mean patient TES increased at T3 (mean ± SD 40.3 ± 22.8) and at T6 (mean ± SD 40.5 ± 22.4) (P = NS for both comparisons) (see Table 2).
Table 2

Modification of mean DAS28 and TES of the 77 RA patients and patient response percentages according to EULAR criteria at baseline (T0) and after three months (T3) and six months (T6) of anti-TNF therapya

Outcome measure




P value

Mean DAS28 (± SD)

5.2 ± 1.2

3.9 ± 1.6

3.8 ± 1.4

T0 vs. T3 < 0.0001

EULAR response




   Good (%)





   Moderate (%)





   None (%)





Mean overall patient TES (± SD)

33.4 ± 21.9

40.3 ± 22.8

40.5 ± 22.4


aDAS28: disease activity score in 28 joints; EULAR: European League Against Rheumatism; NS: not significant; PIP: proximal interphalangeal; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; TES: total erosion score; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

Patients showed a significant DAS28 reduction at T3 (P < 0.0001) and remained substantially stable at T6. According to the EULAR criteria, a good or moderate clinical response was achieved in 63.5% of patients at T3 and in 56.8% of patients at T6 (Table 2). At baseline, patient DAS28 and TES showed a positive correlation (P = 0.01). Changes in DAS28 did not correlate with changes in TES at T3 or T6.

Association of bone-erosive damage with TGF-β 869C/T SNP

Twenty-three patients (29.8%) had the TGF-β 869CC genotype, 34 (44.2%) had the TGF-β 869CT genotype and the remaining 20 (26%) had the TGF-β 869TT genotype. After subgrouping the patients according to genotype, no significant differences were observed among the three groups of patients at baseline with regard to mean age, disease duration, ACPA or RF status, disease activity or disability (Table 3).
Table 3

Characteristics of the 77 RA patients stratified by TGF-β 869C/T SNPs at baseline (T0) and after three months (T3) and six months (T6) of anti-TNF therapya





P value

Mean age, years (± SD)

55.9 ± 14.3

57.1 ± 13.9

56.7 ± 14.1


Mean disease duration, months (± SD)

118.8 ± 93.6

116.4 ± 94.8

118.8 ± 94.8


RF-positive, n (%)

18 (78.2)

29 (85.2)

14 (70)


ACPA-positive, n (%)

16 (69.5)

28 (82.3)

14 (70)


Mean DAS28 (± SD)

5.3 ± 1.1

5.2 ± 1.1

4.8 ± 1.2


Mean HAQ score (± SD)

1.2 ± 0.7

1.34 ± 0.8

1.28 ± 0.8


Mean overall patient TES (± SD)

34.1 ± 22.1

34.7 ± 24.4

29.5 ± 16.8


Mean MCP TES (± SD)

14.7 ± 8.8

12.6 ± 8.6

12.4 ± 6.2


Mean PIP TES (± SD)

8 ± 7.1

10.3 ± 8.9

10.6 ± 7.8


Mean MTP TES (± SD)

11.3 ± 9

11.7 ± 7.8

6.3 ± 5.7


aACPA: anticitrullinated protein/peptide antibody; DAS28: disease activity score in 28 joints; HAQ: Health Assessment Questionnaire; MCP: metacarpophalangeal; MTP: metatarsophalangeal; PIP: proximal interphalangeal; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; RF: rheumatoid factor; TES: total erosion score; TGF-β: transforming growth factor β. *P < 0.05, CC vs. TT; P = 0.01, CT vs. TT.

Interestingly, MTP TES was statistically significantly different between TT genotype patients and those with the CC or CT genotype (mean ± SD MTP TES 869TT: 6.3 ± 5.7 vs. 869CC/CT: 11.7 ± 7.8; P = 0.011) (Table 3). The same results were observed when correction for disease duration was performed.

To determine whether the effect of TGF-β SNP on bone-erosive damage could have been influenced by ACPA and RF status, a comparison between autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative patients was performed (Table 4). Patients with the 869TT genotype (T allele) showed dichotomous behavior depending on autoantibody status. In the presence of ACPA, these patients showed a trend toward lower erosion scores at all anatomical sites studied compared with ACPA-positive patients with the CC or CT genotype (C allele). MTP TES was statistically significantly different between ACPA-positive patients with the T allele and those with the C allele (CC vs. TT Pc < 0.01 and CT vs. TT Pc < 0.05) (Table 4). Similarly, MTP TES was statistically significantly lower in RF-positive patients with the T allele compared with those with the C allele (CC vs. CT Pc < 0.05 and CT vs. TT Pc < 0.05, respectively). Conversely, in seronegative patients, a trend toward higher erosion scores was observed for patients with the T allele compared with those with the C allele. RF-negative patients with the TT genotype showed significantly higher PIP TES compared with those with the CC genotype (Pc < 0.05).
Table 4

Bone-erosive damage assessed on the basis of US scores across TGF-β 869C/T SNPs according to ACPA and RF statusa

Patient status




P value



   Mean overall patient TES (± SD)

39.5 ± 21.4

39.4 ± 26.3

23.7 ± 13.7


   Mean MCP TES (± SD)

16.7 ± 8.7

14.2 ± 9.1

11.2 ± 5.1


   Mean PIP TES (± SD)

9.4 ± 11.9

11.9 ± 9.8

7.7 ± 6.7


   Mean MTP TES (± SD)

13.3 ± 8.8

13.1 ± 8.3

4.75 ± 4.2

P = 0.008, Pc < 0.01; CC vs. TT


P = 0.01, Pc < 0.05; CT vs. TT



   Mean overall patient TES (± SD)

24 ± 21.9

22 ± 11.1

38 ± 17.1


   Mean MCP TES (± SD)

11.5 ± 8.4

7.1 ± 3.6

14 ± 4.7

P < 0.05, Pc = NS; CT vs. TT

   Mean PIP TES (± SD)

5.6 ± 5.3

6.1 ± 5.2

14.2 ± 7.8

P < 0.05, Pc = NS; CC vs. TT

   Mean MTP TES (± SD)

6.8 ± 9.4

8.6 ± 4.8

9.8 ± 8.3




   Mean overall patient TES (± SD)

38 ± 22.4

37.6 ± 25.7

23.7 ± 13.7


   Mean MCP TES (± SD)

16.4 ± 8.9

13.8 ± 8.9

11.2 ± 5


   Mean PIP TES (± SD)

8.6 ± 7.6

11 ± 9.6

7.7 ± 6.7


   Mean MTP TES (± SD)

13 ± 9.1

12.7 ± 8.1

4.7 ± 4.2

P = 0.01, Pc < 0.05; CC vs. CT


P = 0.01, Pc < 0.05; CT vs. TT



   Mean overall patient TES (± SD)

16.5 ± 8.7

27.4 ± 16.5

38 ± 17.1

P = 0.03, Pc = NS; CC vs. TT

   Mean MCP TES (± SD)

7.5 ± 3.3

8.8 ± 6

14 ± 4.7

P = 0.03, Pc = NS; CC vs. TT

   Mean PIP TES (± SD)

5 ± 3.5

9 ± 6.8

14.2 ± 7.8

P = 0.03, Pc < 0.05; CC vs. TT

   Mean MTP TES (± SD)

4 ± 3.5

9.6 ± 8.3

9.8 ± 8.3


aACPA: anticitrullinated protein/peptide antibody; MCP: metacarpophalangeal; MTP: metatarsophalangeal; NS: not significant; PIP: proximal interphalangeal; RF: rheumatoid factor; TES: total erosion score; TGF-β: transforming growth factor β; US: musculoskeletal ultrasound. The comparisons were performed between genotypes (CC vs. CT vs. TT groups) in ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative patients and in RF-positive and RF-negative populations, respectively, using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance. Pc: P values with the Bonferroni correction.

We also assessed whether the TGF-β 869C/T SNP could have influenced US bone erosion progression during six months of anti-TNF therapy. As shown in Figure 1, after stratifying for TGF-β genotypes, there were no statistically significant differences in US-identified progression of patient TES at T3 or T6.
Figure 1

Representation of changes in US score according to TGF-β 869C/T genotype after three and six months of anti-TNF therapy.

Association of bone-erosive damage with IL-6 -174G/C

Forty-eight patients (62.3%) had the IL-6 -174GG genotype, 24 patients (31.2%) had the IL-6 -174GC genotype and the remaining 5 patients (6.5%) had the IL-6 -174CC genotype. After stratifying the patients according to IL-6 -174 genotype (Table 5), no significant differences were observed among the subgroups of patients with regard to mean age, ACPA and RF status, disease activity and disability. Patients with the -174CC genotype (C allele) had a significantly lower disease duration compared with those with the GG genotype (P = 0.01). A statistically significantly lower MTP TES was observed in patients with the -174GC genotype compared with those with the CC genotype (P = 0.007) (Table 5).
Table 5

Characteristics of the 77 RA patients stratified by IL-6 -174G/C SNPa





P value

Mean age, years (± SD)

57.5 ± 13.5

51.1 ± 16.1

61.4 ± 11.9


Mean disease duration, months (± SD)

117.6 ± 74.4

144 ± 129.6

45.6 ± 19.2

P = 0.01; GG vs. CC

RF-positive, n (%)

39 (81.2)

17 (70.8)

4 (80)


ACPA-positive, n (%)

40 (83.3)

16 (66.6)

3 (60)


Mean DAS28 (± SD)

5.3 ± 1.2

4.8 ± 1.3

4.7 ± 0.8


Mean HAQ score (± SD)

1.3 ± 0.7

1.3 ± 0.9

1.3 ± 0.7


Mean overall patient TES (± SD)

36.2 ± 20.4

27 ± 21.8

35.4 ± 28.4


Mean MCP TES (± SD)

14 ± 8.0

12 ± 8.4

12.4 ± 9


Mean PIP TES (± SD)

10.3 ± 7.9

7.5 ± 7.6

13 ± 11.2


Mean MTP TES (± SD)

11.9 ± 7.7

7.4 ± 8.1

10 ± 8.8

P = 0.007; GC vs. CC

aACPA: anticitrullinated protein/peptide antibody; DAS28: disease activity score in 28 joints; ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; HAQ: Health Assessment Questionnaire; IL: interleukin; MCP: metacarpophalangeal; MTP: metatarsophalangeal; NS: not significant; PIP: proximal interphalangeal; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; RF: rheumatoid factor; SD: standard deviation; TES: total erosion score.

After subgrouping the patients according to their autoantibody status, no differences were found with respect to genotype. Furthermore, we assessed whether the IL-6-174G/C SNP could have influenced US-identified bone erosion progression during six months of follow-up. After stratifying for the IL-6 -174SNP genotypes, we observed a trend toward a higher rate of progression of bone-erosive damage at T3 and T6 for patients with the -174G allele (GG/GC genotypes).

Association with response to anti-TNF treatment

After stratifying the patients according to the TGF-β or IL-6 genotype, we observed no significant differences in the proportion of EULAR responders (data not shown). Interestingly, all patients carrying the IL-6 -174CC genotype showed a moderate or good clinical response according to the EULAR criteria after six months of follow-up.

Interobserver reproducibility

Interobserver agreement was statistically significant with regard to bone erosions (P < 0.0001). A comparison of the results from the two sonographers showed that the overall unweighted κ value for the examined joints was 0.72 (agreement in 87.5% of examinations).


In the present study, we have shown that the TGF-β 869C/T SNP could influence the bone-erosive damage evaluated by US in RA patients. Genetic factors are implicated in RA pathogenesis, as they can influence not only RA susceptibility but also clinical and radiological severity and progression [25]. Genetic variants of candidate genes encoding for several cytokines (for example, IL-1, IL-6, IL-10 and TGF-β), proteases (for example, protein tyrosine phosphatase nonreceptor type 22) and other immune/inflammatory genes (for example, macrophage protein 1) have been investigated with contrasting results. When the candidate gene approach was used previously, the study limitations were a lack of statistical power, small cohort dimensions and lack of replication studies [26].

To the best of our knowledge, published data on the effects of polymorphisms on bone-erosive damage in RA have been obtained exclusively on the basis of conventional radiographic assessment [26]. This technique is considered the current standard for the assessment of joint damage in RA [16], but it lacks the capability to detect early bone-erosive damage [27]. Musculoskeletal US is an easily reproducible, time-sparing and relatively low-cost technique that has gained an important role in the evaluation of RA patients. US is increasingly being used in clinical practice related to the standardization of this technique on the basis of the EULAR guidelines and OMERACT definitions [21, 23]. US allows an accurate depiction of soft tissues and bony changes at all stages of the disease process. There is a significant correlation between the degree of synovial inflammation as documented by gray scale and power Doppler methods and disease activity indices [28]. Overall, US is more sensitive than radiography in detecting bone erosions in MCP and MTP joints in patients with RA [2931]. Most of the erosions detected by US cannot be visualized by conventional radiography unless they progress to radiographically evident severe bone lesions, which occur within a period of one to two years. Indeed, US can detect up to seven times more erosions than plain radiography in early RA [32, 33].

We evaluated the TGF-β 869C/T and IL-6 -174G/C genetic variants in 77 RA patients with respect to the bone-erosive damage evaluated by US. We chose these SNPs for their potentially key interacting roles in patients with RA. TGF-β is considered a pivotal cytokine in the modulation of the immune response in RA. It shows pro- and anti-inflammatory effects with a broad range of biological functions, including wound healing, fibrosis, immune suppression and angiogenesis [34]. It has chemotactic properties and can stimulate cells to produce IL-1, IL-6, TNF and other proinflammatory cytokines at sites of inflammation [35]. It can have immunosuppressive features by inhibiting the proliferation of T and B cells and the generation of T-cell cytotoxicity [36, 37]. The TGF-β 869C/T SNP has been widely evaluated in patients with RA. Studies of Japanese and Chinese patient populations found an association with disease susceptibility not confirmed in Caucasians [11]. A recent meta-analysis underlined that this SNP may play different roles in different ethnicities, as genetic heterogeneity exists in different RA populations [11]. Yamada et al. [38, 39] found higher TGF-β serum concentrations in patients with CC genotype > > CT genotype and > TT genotype, suggesting that the 869C/T substitution may affect signaling functions of the peptide or the intracellular trafficking or export efficiency of the protein. In our patient population, independently of disease duration, patients with the C allele the number of erosions at the MTP level were almost twice those in patients with the T allele. The C-allele carriers (who are supposed to have higher serum levels of TGF-β) may show increased osteoclast activation mediated by IL-17, leading to erosive damage. Enhanced expression of TGF-β has been detected in synovial effusion and synovium of patients with RA [40]. However, surprisingly, these results were confirmed in ACPA- or RF-positive patients but not in ACPA- or RF-negative patients, in whom opposite results were obtained.

It has been shown that "seropositive" patients display peculiar features, including more severe disease with greater radiographic progression [41]. Our data may support the hypothesis that the autoantibody-positive RA patient population may differ from the so-called "seronegative," not only in clinical outcomes but also with regard to genetic background and mechanism of disease development. The SE allele has been associated with RA only in ACPA-positive patients [42, 43]. Because of these considerations, we hypothesize that the dichotomous behavior of TGF-β might be dependent on the presence of autoantibodies that may interact at some level with the TGF-β biologic pathway. In seropositive patients, the presence of a more proinflammatory milieu might switch TGF-β to exert its proinflammatory effects with osteoclastogenic stimulation, leading to bone-erosive damage. In this case, the presence of the C allele might be responsible for the observed higher US-detected bone-erosive damage. On the contrary, in seronegative RA patients, TGF-β might "switch" to exert anti-inflammatory effects, which would explain the lesser bone damage in patients with the C allele. It cannot be excluded that other as yet undiscovered factors may be involved in such a dichotomy. In our study, on the one hand, the inclusion of seropositive and seronegative RA patients led to small subgroup sizes, but on the other hand, this protocol may have helped to clarify the hypothesis that these populations represent different entities, even on a molecular basis. Larger cohorts are required to better address this issue.

Only one previous study investigated the association between TGF-β 869C/T gene SNP and radiographic progression in RA. In agreement with our results, the authors of that study showed that the T allele was not associated with the Larsen score after correction for disease duration. The authors of that publication concluded that the TGF-β 869C/T SNP was not associated with structural severity. According to our results as well, the same SNP is not associated with the progression of structural damage [13].

IL-6 is a proinflammatory cytokine characterized by a range of pleiotropic activities capable of mediating cartilage and bone damage, including induction of acute phase proteins and stimulation of T and B cells, synoviocytes and osteoclasts [44]. The presence of the G variant at position -174 of the promoter region of the IL-6 gene leads to increased transcriptional activity and thus to higher levels of the cytokine in serum and synovial tissue in patients with RA [20, 45]. In our study, patients with the -174G allele showed higher rates of progression of erosive damage (although not statistically significant) even in the presence of longer disease duration at baseline. This result is in agreement with the findings of previous studies. Indeed, the same -174G allele was associated with higher disease severity evaluated with the DAS28, and an allele-dose association of the IL-6 -174G variant with increasing radiographic damage was observed in both ACPA-positive and RF-positive RA patients [46].

None of the SNPs in the two genes influence the response to TNF antagonist therapy. This has never been previously addressed for TGF-β 869C/T, while few data showing contrasting results are available for IL-6 -174C/G [47]. As mentioned above, in our study, the MTP joints showed the highest sensitivity of change. It cannot be excluded that statistical significance could have been reached even at the MCP and PIP levels with a larger patient cohort. Nevertheless, forefoot disease activity appears to be frequent in patients with RA. DAS28 score, which excludes forefoot disease from the joint count, may underestimate disease activity compared with DAS44. In a recent study conducted by van der Leeden and colleagues [48], about 40% of the patients who had DAS28 remission had at least one painful and/or swollen MTP joint during the first eight years of RA. These authors suggested that the DAS28 remission criterion for RA neglects patients with active forefoot involvement. In addition to this clinical discrepancy, researchers in several studies have found that the erosive disease in RA often begins in the small joints of the feet, while the hands are affected only at a later stage in the disease course [22]. This evidence is supported by the better sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing RA provided by combining hand and foot radiographs than hand radiographs alone (as per the 1987 ACR criteria) [22, 4951]. More recently, Sheane and colleagues [52] suggested that ultrasonographic assessment of the fifth MTP joints may be useful in the diagnosis of RA by identifying erosions and synovitis at a very early stage. In a previous report published by our group [53], MTP evaluation allowed a distinction to be made between RA and undifferentiated arthritis in patients with early arthritis, suggesting that MTP involvement may be more specific for RA. Thus, evaluation of bone-erosive damage at MTP joints should be performed at an early stage in RA patients.

US has several intrinsic limitations, such as the presence of artefacts produced at the bone cortex, abnormal setting of the machine (that is, increased pulse repetition frequency, reduced gain and altered persistence) and the incapability of penetrating the cortex to identify subchondral lesions, cysts or bone marrow lesions. Nonetheless, the main limits remain spreading and standardization. Despite the great effort being made to expand the use of US, this technique is not yet available to all rheumatologists in the evaluation of RA patients. Moreover, there is a certain level of inter- and intraobserver variability between ultrasonographers.

However, in the evaluation of bone erosions, US has demonstrated good interobserver agreement in studies reported in the literature [54]. In our study, to reduce operator dependence to a minimum, the patients were studied independently on the same day by two experienced ultrasonographers. The results of the erosion scores were the means of the scores recorded by the two operators, and the interobserver agreement was high and comparable to that reported in previous studies.


In conclusion, our study confirms that genetic factors are involved in determining the severity of bone damage in RA as well as in predicting disease progression. Of note, the TGF-β 869C/T SNP seems to have dichotomous roles according to the patient's autoantibody (ACPA and RF) status. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first in which the roles of TGF-β and IL-6 gene variants in bone-erosive damage were evaluated with US. Further studies with larger patient series and longer follow-up are needed.




anticitrullinated protein/peptide antibody


C-reactive protein


disease activity score in 28 joints


enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay


erythrocyte sedimentation rate


European League Against Rheumatism


Health Assessment Questionnaire


human leukocyte antigen








Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials


polymerase chain reaction


proximal interphalangeal


rheumatoid arthritis


rheumatoid factor


standard deviation


shared epitope


single-nucleotide polymorphism


total erosion score


transforming growth factorβ


tumor necrosis factor


musculoskeletal ultrasound


visual analogue scale.


Authors’ Affiliations

Reumatologia, Dipartimento di Medicina Interna e Specialità Mediche, Sapienza Università di Roma
Cattedra di Reumatologia, DPMSC, Università degli Studi di Udine, Via Palladio


  1. Scott DL, Wolfe F, Huizinga TW: Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2010, 376: 1094-1108. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60826-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Gregersen PK, Silver J, Winchester RJ: The shared epitope hypothesis: an approach to understanding the molecular genetics of susceptibility to rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1987, 30: 1205-1213. 10.1002/art.1780301102.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Verner K, Schatz G: Protein translocation across membranes. Science. 1988, 241: 1307-1313. 10.1126/science.2842866.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Mangan PR, Harrington LE, O'Quinn DB, Helms WS, Bullard DC, Elson CO, Hatton RD, Wahl SM, Schoeb TR, Weaver CT: Transforming growth factor β induces development of the TH17 lineage. Nature. 2006, 441: 231-234. 10.1038/nature04754.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Veldhoen M, Hocking RJ, Atkins CJ, Locksley RM, Stockinger B: TGFβ in the context of an inflammatory cytokine milieu supports de novo differentiation of IL-17-producing T cells. Immunity. 2006, 24: 179-189. 10.1016/j.immuni.2006.01.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bettelli E, Carrier Y, Gao W, Korn T, Strom TB, Oukka M, Weiner HL, Kuchroo VK: Reciprocal developmental pathways for the generation of pathogenic effector TH17 and regulatory T cells. Nature. 2006, 441: 235-238. 10.1038/nature04753.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Miossec P, Korn T, Kuchroo VK: Interleukin-17 and type 17 helper T cells. N Engl J Med. 2009, 361: 888-898. 10.1056/NEJMra0707449.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Choy EH, Panayi GS: Cytokine pathways and joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2001, 344: 907-916. 10.1056/NEJM200103223441207.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Newton JL, Harney SM, Wordsworth BP, Brown MA: A review of the MHC genetics of rheumatoid arthritis. Genes Immun. 2004, 5: 151-157. 10.1038/sj.gene.6364045.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kilding R, Iles MM, Timms JM, Worthington J, Wilson AG: Additional genetic susceptibility for rheumatoid arthritis telomeric of the DRB1 locus. Arthritis Rheum. 2004, 50: 763-769. 10.1002/art.20043.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang WW, Su H, He L, Zhao KF, Wu JL, Xu ZW: Association between transforming growth factor-β1 T869C polymorphism and rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010, 49: 652-656. 10.1093/rheumatology/kep417.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Marinou I, Healy J, Mewar D, Moore DJ, Dickson MC, Binks MH, Montgomery DS, Walters K, Wilson AG: Association of interleukin-6 and interleukin-10 genotypes with radiographic damage in rheumatoid arthritis is dependent on autoantibody status. Arthritis Rheum. 2007, 56: 2549-2556. 10.1002/art.22814.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Mattey DL, Nixon N, Dawes PT, Kerr J: Association of polymorphism in the transforming growth factor β1 gene with disease outcome and mortality in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005, 64: 1190-1194. 10.1136/ard.2004.031674.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Filippucci E, Iagnocco A, Meenagh G, Riente L, Delle Sedie A, Bombardieri S, Valesini G, Grassi W: Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2006, 24: 1-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, McShane DJ, Fries JF, Cooper NS, Healey LA, Kaplan SR, Liang MH, Luthra HS, Medsger TA, Mitchell DM, Neustadt DH, Pinals RS, Schaller JG, Sharp JT, Wilder RL, Hunder GG: The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988, 31: 315-324. 10.1002/art.1780310302.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham CO, Birnbaum NS, Burmester GR, Bykerk VP, Cohen MD, Combe B, Costenbader KH, Dougados M, Emery P, Ferraccioli G, Hazes JM, Hobbs K, Huizinga TW, Kavanaugh A, Kay J, Kvien TK, Laing T, Mease P, Ménard HA, Moreland LW, Naden RL, Pincus T, Smolen JS, Stanislawska-Biernat E, Symmons D, American College of Rheumatology, European League Against Rheumatism, et al: Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum. 2010, 62: 2569-2581. 10.1002/art.27584.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Conti F, Scrivo R, Spinelli FR, Truglia S, Magrini L, Di Franco M, Ceccarelli F, Valesini G: Outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis switching TNF-α antagonists: a single center, observational study over an 8-year period. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2009, 27: 540-541.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Prevoo ML, van 't Hof MA, Kuper HH, van Leeuwen MA, van de Putte LB, van Riel PL: Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts: development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995, 38: 44-48. 10.1002/art.1780380107.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fries JF, Spitz PW, Young DY: The dimensions of health outcomes: the Health Assessment Questionnaire, disability and pain scales. J Rheumatol. 1982, 9: 789-793.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fishman D, Faulds G, Jeffery R, Mohamed-Ali V, Yudkin JS, Humphries S, Woo P: The effect of novel polymorphisms in the interleukin-6 (IL-6) gene on IL-6 transcription and plasma IL-6 levels, and an association with systemic-onset juvenile chronic arthritis. J Clin Invest. 1998, 102: 1369-1376. 10.1172/JCI2629.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Backhaus M, Burmester GR, Gerber T, Grassi W, Machold KP, Swen WA, Wakefield RJ, Manger B, Working Group for Musculoskeletal Ultrasound in the EULAR Standing Committee on International Clinical Studies including Therapeutic Trials: Guidelines for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001, 60: 641-649. 10.1136/ard.60.7.641.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. van der Heijde DM, van Leeuwen MA, van Riel PL, van de Putte LB: Radiographic progression on radiographs of hands and feet during the first 3 years of rheumatoid arthritis measured according to Sharp's method (van der Heijde modification). J Rheumatol. 1995, 22: 1792-1796.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wakefield RJ, Balint PV, Szkudlarek M, Filippucci E, Backhaus M, D'Agostino MA, Sanchez EN, Iagnocco A, Schmidt WA, Bruyn GA, Kane D, O'Connor PJ, Manger B, Joshua F, Koski J, Grassi W, Lassere MN, Swen N, Kainberger F, Klauser A, Ostergaard M, Brown AK, Machold KP, Conaghan PG, OMERACT 7 Special Interest Group: Musculoskeletal ultrasound including definitions for ultrasonographic pathology. J Rheumatol. 2005, 32: 2485-2487.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977, 33: 159-174. 10.2307/2529310.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Dieudé P, Cornélis F: Genetic basis of rheumatoid arthritis. Joint Bone Spine. 2005, 72: 520-526. 10.1016/j.jbspin.2005.09.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Marinou I, Maxwell JR, Wilson AG: Genetic influences modulating the radiological severity of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010, 69: 476-482. 10.1136/ard.2009.117721.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Visser H, le Cessie S, Vos K, Breedveld FC, Hazes JM: How to diagnose rheumatoid arthritis early: a prediction model for persistent (erosive) arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2002, 46: 357-365. 10.1002/art.10117.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Naredo E, Collado P, Cruz A, Palop MJ, Cabero F, Richi P, Carmona L, Crespo M: Longitudinal power Doppler ultrasonographic assessment of joint inflammatory activity in early rheumatoid arthritis: predictive value in disease activity and radiologic progression. Arthritis Rheum. 2007, 57: 116-124. 10.1002/art.22461.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Backhaus M, Kamradt T, Sandrock D, Loreck D, Fritz J, Wolf KJ, Raber H, Hamm B, Burmester GR, Bollow M: Arthritis of the finger joints: a comprehensive approach comparing conventional radiography, scintigraphy, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum. 1999, 42: 1232-1245. 10.1002/1529-0131(199906)42:6<1232::AID-ANR21>3.0.CO;2-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wakefield RJ, Gibbon WW, Conaghan PG, O'Connor P, McGonagle D, Pease C, Green MJ, Veale DJ, Isaacs JD, Emery P: The value of sonography in the detection of bone erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with conventional radiography. Arthritis Rheum. 2000, 43: 2762-2770. 10.1002/1529-0131(200012)43:12<2762::AID-ANR16>3.0.CO;2-#.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Szkudlarek M, Narvestad E, Klarlund M, Court-Payen M, Thomsen HS, Østergaard M: Ultrasonography of the metatarsophalangeal joints in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging, conventional radiography, and clinical examination. Arthritis Rheum. 2004, 50: 2103-2112. 10.1002/art.20333.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Scheel AK, Hermann KGA, Ohrndorf S, Werner C, Schirmer C, Detert J, Bollow M, Hamm B, Müller GA, Burmester GR, Backhaus M: Prospective 7 year follow up imaging study comparing radiography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis finger joints. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006, 65: 595-600. 10.1136/ard.2005.041814.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lopez-Ben R, Bernreuter WK, Moreland LW, Alarcon GS: Ultrasound detection of bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison to routine radiographs of the hands and feet. Skeletal Radiol. 2004, 33: 80-84. 10.1007/s00256-003-0693-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Heldin CH, Landström M, Moustakas A: Mechanism of TGF-β signaling to growth arrest, apoptosis, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2009, 21: 166-176. 10.1016/ ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor AW: Review of the activation of TGF-β in immunity. J Leukoc Biol. 2009, 85: 29-33.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee G, Ellingsworth LR, Gillis S, Wall R, Kincade PW: βtransforming growth factors are potential regulators of B lymphopoiesis. J Exp Med. 1987, 166: 1290-1299. 10.1084/jem.166.5.1290.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Cerwenka A, Swain SL: TGF-β1: immunosuppressant and viability factor for T lymphocytes. Microbes Infect. 1999, 1: 1291-1296. 10.1016/S1286-4579(99)00255-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Yamada Y, Miyauchi A, Goto J, Takagi Y, Okuizumi H, Kanematsu M, Hase M, Takai H, Harada A, Ikeda K: Association of a polymorphism of the transforming growth factor-β1 gene with genetic susceptibility to osteoporosis in postmenopausal Japanese women. J Bone Miner Res. 1998, 13: 1569-1576.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Yamada Y, Okuizumi H, Miyauchi A, Takagi Y, Ikeda K, Harada A: Association of transforming growth factor β1 genotype with spinal osteophytosis in Japanese women. Arthritis Rheum. 2000, 43: 452-460. 10.1002/1529-0131(200002)43:2<452::AID-ANR28>3.0.CO;2-C.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Fava R, Olsen N, Keski-Oja J, Moses H, Pincus T: Active and latent forms of transforming growth factor β activity in synovial effusions. J Exp Med. 1989, 169: 291-296. 10.1084/jem.169.1.291.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. van der Helm-van Mil AH, Verpoort KN, Breedveld FC, Toes RE, Huizinga TW: Antibodies to citrullinated proteins and differences in clinical progression of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2005, 7: R949-R958. 10.1186/ar1767.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Huizinga TW, Ames CI, van der Helm-van Mil AH, Chen W, van Gaalen FA, Jawaheer D, Schreuder GM, Wener M, Breedveld FC, Ahmad N, Lum RF, de Vries RR, Gregersen PK, Toes RE, Criswell LA: Refining the complex rheumatoid arthritis phenotype based on specificity of the HLA-DRB1 shared epitope for antibodies to citrullinated proteins. Arthritis Rheum. 2005, 52: 3433-3438. 10.1002/art.21385.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Verpoort KN, van Gaalen FA, van der Helm-van Mil AH, Schreuder GM, Breedveld FC, Huizinga TW, de Vries RR, Toes RE: Association of HLA-DR3 with anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2005, 52: 3058-3062. 10.1002/art.21302.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kishimoto T: Interleukin-6: from basic science to medicine: 40 years in immunology. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005, 23: 1-21. 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115806.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wood NC, Symons JA, Dickens E, Duff GW: In situ hybridization of IL-6 in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Immunol. 1992, 87: 183-189.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pawlik A, Wrzesniewska J, Florczak M, Gawronska-Szklarz B, Herczynska M: IL-6 promoter polymorphism in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol. 2005, 34: 109-113. 10.1080/03009740510026373.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Hassan B, Maxwell JR, Hyrich KL, Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis Genetics and Genomics Study Syndicate, Barton A, Worthington J, Isaacs JD, Morgan AW, Wilson AG: Genotype at the sIL-6R A358C polymorphism does not influence response to anti-TNF therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010, 49: 43-47. 10.1093/rheumatology/kep372.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. van der Leeden M, Steultjens MP, van Schaardenburg D, Dekker J: Forefoot disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis patients in remission: results of a cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010, 12: R3-10.1186/ar2901.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Isomaki H, Kaarela K, Martio J: Are hand radiographs the most suitable for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis?. Arthritis Rheum. 1988, 31: 1452-1453.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Priolo F, Bacarini L, Cammisa M, Cesare A, Ferrara R, Della Casa-Alberighi O: Radiographic changes in the feet of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1997, 24: 2113-2118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Paimela L: The radiographic criterion in the 1987 revised criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: reassessment in a prospective study of early disease. Arthritis Rheum. 1992, 35: 255-258. 10.1002/art.1780350303.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sheane BJ, Beddy P, O'Connor M, Miller S, Cunnane G: Targeted ultrasound of the fifth metatarsophalangeal joint in an early inflammatory arthritis cohort. Arthritis Rheum. 2009, 61: 1004-1008. 10.1002/art.24564.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Ceccarelli F, Iagnocco A, Di Franco M, Iannuccelli C, Valesini G: Ultrasound of metatarsophalangeal joints in an early inflammatory arthritis cohort: comment on the article by Sheane et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010, 62: 137-139.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Szkudlarek M, Court-Payen M, Jacobsen S, Klarlund M, Thomsen HS, Østergaard M: Interobserver agreement in ultrasonography of the finger and toe joints in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003, 48: 955-962. 10.1002/art.10877.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar


© Ceccarelli et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.