Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Fluorescence optical imaging for treatment monitoring in patients with early and active rheumatoid arthritis in a 1-year follow-up period

Arthritis Research & Therapy volume 21, Article number: 209 (2019) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Fluorescence optical imaging (FOI) enables visualization of inflammation in the hands in rheumatic joint diseases with currently a lack of long-term follow-up studies.

Objective

To investigate FOI for treatment monitoring in a homogenous cohort of patients with early (disease duration < 2 years) and active (DAS28 > 3.2) RA over a period of 12 months.

Methods

Thirty-five RA patients (24 (68.6%) females, mean age 53.3 years (SD 13.6)) were investigated clinically by DAS28, tender joint count (TJC) and swollen joint count (SJC) and by FOI in phases 1–3 and PrimaVistaMode (PVM) before therapy change and after 12 months. The FOI activity score (FOIAS) was calculated based on individual joint scores from 0 to 3 in 30 joints per patient, adding up to a sum score (0–90).

Results

We found a statistically significant reduction of FOIAS in phase 1 from baseline (median 5.0, IQR 24.96) to follow-up (median 1.0, IQR 4.0) in all patients (p = 0.0045), both in responders and non-responders according to EULAR response criteria by DAS28. Statistically significant reductions over 12 months were found for median DAS28(ESR) 5.61 to 3.31, TJC 7.0 to 1.0, and SJC 5.0 to 1.0 (each p <  0.001). No statistically significant correlations were detected between the FOIAS change in phase 1 and DAS28(ESR), TJC, or SJC. Correlations between the other phases and clinical outcomes were weak to moderate.

Conclusion

Reduced early enhancement in FOI phase 1 can be observed in clinically responding and non-responding early RA patients under treatment. Regarding potential marker performance, FOI probably shows a reduction of inflammation more objectively.

Background

To monitor therapeutic response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), clinical disease activity scores such as DAS28 are applied [1]. Besides, more sensitive and objective imaging modalities are recommended in the clinical management of RA [2]. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) are both widely used in clinical practice and research within the field of RA [3,4,5,6,7,8]. MRI-detected pathologies such as synovitis and tenosynovitis are highly responsive to antirheumatic treatment [9,10,11]. However, MRI has the disadvantage of high costs, time exposure, and occasional contraindications (e.g., pacemaker and claustrophobia) [12]. In several studies, US-detected synovitis and tenosynovitis have also been shown to be sensitive to change under therapy, especially in Power Doppler mode (PDUS) [13,14,15,16] reflecting disease activity. US is a cost-effective, widespread method that is risk-free for patients, is indefinitely repeatable, and involves less inconvenience than MRI. Drawbacks may be the dependency on the examiner [17] and the inability to pairwise compare baseline and follow-up images immediately while investigating unless all images are saved for analysis later on; however, US images are usually saved as “still images” (lost of dynamic approach).

In search of an imaging method for the optimal detection of disease activity, new procedures are developed and investigated. Since 2009, the fluorescence optical imaging (FOI) “Xiralite” (Xiralite GmbH, Berlin, Germany) has been shown to detect inflammation in preclinical studies [18, 19] as well as in humans [20,21,22,23,24,25,26] in the joint regions of both hands. The basis of the Xiralite method is the demonstration of an impaired microcirculation caused by the inflammatory process of arthritis. Here, the enhancement of an intravenously applied dye indocyanine green (ICG) is evaluated. FOI is a non-ionizing technique that examines both hands in one session of 6 min. Besides, the examination itself can be performed by clinical assistants. Impediments in the sense of resulting contraindications are an impaired liver function, since the applied dye is primarily excreted biliarily [27]. Furthermore, an allergic reaction to the ICG solution can occur [28]. However, the overall risk of ICG to the patient is low [29].

Previous studies have demonstrated good agreements between FOI, clinical assessment, MRI, and US [21] as well as a moderate und substantial reliability for the scoring of FOI images [22]. Additionally, FOI may also detect subclinical inflammation [25]. Only one study has evaluated the responsiveness of FOI, so far. Meier et al. found a reduction in the signal intensity during therapy response in a group of patients with forms of different arthritis who were examined by a computer-based evaluation of FOI and MRI; however, the observed group was heterogeneous and only investigated over a time period of 6 months [30].

The aim of the present study was the investigation of FOI’s ability to reflect treatment response in a homogenous cohort of patients with early and active RA over a period of 12 months. Besides, we aimed for exploration of its correlations with clinical outcomes such as DAS28. The correlation with US as a common imaging modality in daily rheumatological practice was set as a secondary outcome.

Methods

This study is a subproject (No. 7) of the Arthromark project as a national research network in Germany funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The main goal of the several Arthromark subprojects is the identification of new biomarkers including the application and assessment of new and modern imaging techniques in terms of making a diagnosis and follow-up examinations in patients with RA, psoriasis arthritis, and spondyloarthritis [31].

In this subproject, we included 42 patients with early (disease duration < 24 months) and active (DAS28 > 3.2) RA, who started therapy with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or escalated therapy with initiation of biologic therapy (bDMARD) after failure of conventional therapy. Over a period of 1 year, patients were examined clinically and by US (for further description of additional US, see Additional file 1) five times (baseline, after 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months). FOI was performed at baseline and after 12 months in 35 patients who were included in these analyses (in seven patients, the 12-month visit was not performed).

Clinical and laboratory examination

A clinical assessment of tender (28 tender joint count (TJC)) and swollen joints (28 swollen joint count (SJC)) was performed. Patients self-reported their evaluation of the global disease activity and the current general joint pain (both on a visual analog scale (VAS) 0–100 mm). Clinical and laboratory examination was accomplished on the same day as the imaging (FOI; US) examinations. Usually, FOI was ordinarily performed after the US examination. The laboratory investigation included the assessment of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP). The rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA) were determined at inclusion.

The Disease Activity Score DAS28 was calculated based on the 28-TJC, 28-SJC, ESR or CRP, and patient’s global VAS [1]. The calculation of the difference between DAS28 value at baseline or the prior visit and current value gave information of response to therapy after EULAR response criteria [32,33,34] (a definition is presented in Additional file 1: Table S1). Based on the EULAR response (Table S1), patients were assigned to a group of responders (DAS28(ESR) ≤ 3.2 and improvement of > 0.6) or non-responders (DAS28(ESR) > 3.2). This process was done to evaluate treatment monitoring by FOI.

Fluorescence optical imaging (FOI)

FOI (Xiralite® System) was performed following a standardized procedure.

The examination term lasted 6 min, recording one image per second and adding up to a cluster of 360 images [21, 22]. A bolus of indocyanine green (ICG) as fluorescence optical dye with a dose of 0.1 mg/kg body weight was injected intravenously 10 s after the beginning of the examination [21, 22].

The attached software system enabled a visualization of invasion and distribution of ICG in the hands. An image sequence in the film modus and an automatically generated image in the PrimaVistaMode (PVM) were analyzed to evaluate the distribution and enhancement of ICG. For the film modus, three phases in position to the fingertips were defined regarding signal intensities depending on individual perfusion [22]. Phase 1 (p1) included the period between starting the investigation, application of the dye, and increased signal intensities in the fingertips [22], which means an increasing intensity of fluorescence signal. The time period of persisting high signal intensities as plateau in the fingertips was defined as phase 2 (p2) [22]. Investigators do identify this phase on red color signs of the enhancement in the fingertips. The time point without signal intensity meaning only yellow sparkles in the fingertips as a signal for clearance determined the beginning of phase 3 (p3) [22].

Enhancement of ICG can be graded by false-color illustration, which is identical between different scans, time points, and patients. It defines white enhancement as high intensities and concentration of ICG. Red, yellow, and green enhancement follows in a descending order of ICG concentration. For analyzing the joint activity by FOI, the evaluation at the joint level included a combination of size, shape, and color of the signal in a semiquantitative grading system (FOIAS; fluorescence optical imaging activity score): 0 = no signal enhancement, green to yellow signals; 1 = low signal intensity (≤ 25% of the joint area affected), yellow-red signals including red signals with yellow spots; 2 = moderate signal intensity (> 25%, ≤ 50% of the joint area affected), strong red signals including red signals with white spots; 3 = strong signal intensity (> 50% of the joint area affected), white signals [21, 22]. If there was a discrepancy between the intensity of the color and the size of the enhancement, the lower grade of the scoring system was assigned. In detail, enhancements with a discrepancy between two subsequent grades (1 and 2 or 2 and 3) were evaluated with the lower grade number. Differences of signal color and size between grades far apart (e.g., grades 1 and 3) were scored with the intermediate grade (e.g., grade 2).

The ICG distribution in the three phases (p1, p2, p3) and in PrimaVistaMode (PVM) was assessed for the joint regions of 30 joints per patient, including the bilateral wrist, metacarpophalangeal joints (MCP) I–V, proximal interphalangeal joints (PIP) II-V, distal interphalangeal joints (DIP) II-V, and interphalangeal joint of the thumb (IP) [21]. The scoring of color intensity, size, and shape of ICG enhancement was performed by an agreement-based consensus of two investigators (SO; LS).

We calculated the number of affected joints and sum scores (FOIAS; fluorescence optical imaging activity score) for each phase (0–90 scales). In addition, the sum scores of the left hand and the right hand were individually calculated.

Statistical analyses

Wilcoxon signed rank tests were done to compare clinical data (TJC, SJC, DAS28(ESR)) and FOIAS between two visits (baseline (V0) and 12 months (V12)). Furthermore, Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to test for the statistical significance of the difference of score change between responders and non-responders to DAS28 changes under treatment. In addition, we examined whether the FOIAS was correlated with clinical outcome and ultrasound data by use of Spearman’s correlation coefficients including the analysis assessing specific points of time and the change between two points of time. The significance level of 0.05 (5%) was used. p values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to the explorative character of the analyses. Statistical analyses were performed with the statistical program R [35]. If not specified otherwise, the descriptive statistics provided median values (1. quartile; 3. quartile).

Results

Patients’ characteristics are presented in Table 1. Our analyses focused on the 35 of 42 patients who completed the study after 12 months.

Table 1 Patients’ characteristics at baseline
Full size table

Clinical parameters

During 12 months follow-up, we found statistically significant reductions in TJC 7.0 (3.5;15) to 1.0 (0;3) and SJC 5.0 (3;9.5) to 1.0 (0;2), respectively (each p <  0.001; see Table 2).

Table 2 Clinical and ultrasound parameters at baseline and after 12 months in total population, group of responders and non-responders
Full size table

At baseline, patients had high disease activity with median DAS28(ESR) of 5.61 (4.8;6.23). After 1 year, disease activity was statistically significantly reduced to a median DAS28 of 3.31 (2.45;3.98) (p <  0.001) which corresponds to moderate disease activity (see Table 2). By the end of the study, 31.4% (11/35) of patients had achieved remission (DAS28 < 2.6).

Fluorescence optical imaging (FOI)

Statistically significant reductions were detected in the FOI sum score (FOIAS) in phase 1 from baseline (5.0, (1.04; 26)) to 12 months follow-up (1.0 (0; 4)) in the total patient cohort (p = 0.0045). There were no statistically significant changes in the FOI sum score in phase 2, phase 3, or PVM in the total cohort (see Table 3 and Fig. 1 and Additional file 1: Table S2 (analysis without DIP).

Table 3 FOIAS of phases 1–3 and PVM (PrimaVistaMode) in FOI at baseline and after 12 months (n = 35 for FOIAS parameters
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Reduction of early enhancement in FOI (fluorescence optical imaging) phase 1 after 12 months follow-up: a V0: Example with early high enhancement in phase 1 before ICG flooding in the fingertips, especially in the wrists, PIPs, and IPs of both hands. Moderate enhancement in MCP II and IV of the right hand. V12: High physiological enhancement in the fingertips in phase 1 after 12 months. No enhancement in the finger and hand joints. b Example of early enhancement in phase 1 in both hands, especially in MCP II and III of the right hand. High enhancement also in PIPs of both hands, left wrist, and MCP II and III. Physiological signal in the fingertips. V12: High physiological enhancement in the fingertips in phase 1 after 12 months. No significant enhancement in the finger and hand joints. V0: baseline, V12: follow-up after 12 months

Full size image

Correlation of FOI and clinical parameters

Regarding baseline data, no significant positive correlation between FOI and clinical parameters (TJC, SJC, and DAS28(ESR)) can be shown (see Fig. 2a).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Pairwise correlation between the number of affected joints in clinical examination and FOI phases 1, 2, and 3 and PVM: significance level = 0.05; FOI = fluorescence optical imaging; PVM = PrimaVistaMode; SJC = swollen joint count; TJC = tender joint count; DAS28(ESR) = Disease Activity Score of 28 joints and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR); VAS = visual analog scale. Spearman’s correlation coefficients and p values are presented. a measurement at V0 (baseline) b change at V12 (12 months follow-up)

Full size image

FOI in phase 1 showed no statistically significant correlations with clinical data concerning the analysis of clinically affected joints and FOI after 12 months follow-up (see Fig. 2b). FOI phases 2 and 3 demonstrated weak to moderate correlations with DAS28(ESR) and SJC. PVM correlated significantly with all three clinical parameters. While the correlation with TJC was only weak (r = 0.38), PVM correlated moderately with SJC and DAS28(ESR) (r = 0.58, r = 0.51, see Fig. 2b). The corresponding p values of the correlation coefficients were < 0.05. An additional statistical analysis performed without the DIP joints in FOI did not change the level or direction of correlation (for further data see Additional file 1: Tables S3a-b).

Correlations between FOI and US

US data of baseline and after 12 months are presented in Table 2.

With respect to the calculated correlations in the total group, tenosynovitis in greyscale ultrasound (GSUS) and PDUS correlated with every phase and PVM at baseline, but strongest for PD-tenosynovitis with phase 2 (r = 0.73; p <  0.05). With regard to GS- and PD-synovitis, significant positive correlations with phase 1, phase 2, and PVM at baseline can be shown. While GS-synovitis most strongly correlated with PVM in FOI (r = 0.6), the strongest correlation between PD-synovitis and FOI was demonstrated for phase 1 (r = 0.59) (Fig. 3a).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Pairwise correlation between US7 and FOI phase 1, 2, and 3 and PVM: significance level = 0.05; FOI = fluorescence optical imaging; PVM = PrimaVistaMode; PD = power Doppler mode in ultrasound, GS = greyscale mode in ultrasound. Spearman’s correlation coefficients and p values are presented. a measurements at V0 (baseline) b change at V12 (12 months follow-up)

Full size image

After 12 months, FOI in phase 2 demonstrated the strongest correlations, especially with PD-tenosynovitis (r = 0.63; p <  0.05) and GS-tenosynovitis (r = 0.59; p <  0.05). For phase 1, low correlation with GS-synovitis can be demonstrated (r = 0.48, p <  0.05). However, PVM was the only FOI part correlating with all considered US parameters (Fig. 3b).

Comparison of clinical findings and FOI in responders vs. non-responders

According to the EULAR response criteria [32], n = 16 (45.7%) patients were defined as responders (DAS28(ESR) ≤ 3.2 and improvement of > 0.6) and n = 19 (54.3%) as non-responders (DAS28(ESR) > 3.2).

Regarding the responders (DAS28(ESR) ≤ 3.2 and improvement of > 0.6; n = 16) and non-responders (DAS28(ESR) > 3.2; n = 19), both groups demonstrated a statistically significant decline in affected tender and swollen joints after 12 months. Non-responders had a greater number of tender (11 (5.5;18.5)) and swollen (6; (3.5;9.5)) joints at baseline than the group of responders (TJC: 4.5 (3;10.5) and SJC: 3.5 (1.75;8.25), respectively). After 12 months, the number of tender and swollen joints decreased to 0 in responders (see Table 2). In non-responders, the median number of tender joints and swollen joints was 3 (1.5;11) and 1 (0;4), respectively (see Table 2).

With regard to US7 score parameters, the group of responders showed significant decrease in all US7 parameters, while the group of non-responders revealed significant decrease only in PD-synovitis.

We found no statistically significant difference in the change of the FOI sum score between responders and non-responders for the FOI phases 2 and 3 and PVM relating to EULAR response criteria [32,33,34] for low disease activity. In FOI phase 1, the difference in the change of FOI sum score was similar in non-responders (p = 0.047) and responders (p = 0.052) (see Fig. 4a). There were no statistically significant differences across patients who did vs. did not achieve remission for FOI phases 2 and 3 and PVM. For FOI phase 1, statistically significant difference was shown only in responders regarding clinical remission status (see Fig. 4b).

Fig. 4
figure 4

a Course of FOI sum scores in comparison to EULAR response criteria of “low disease activity” according to DAS28. b Course of FOI sum scores in comparison to EULAR response criteria of “remission” according to DAS28: non-responder (DAS28(ESR) > 3.2), responder (DAS28(ESR) ≤3.2 and improvement of > 0.6). FOI = fluorescence optical imaging; DAS28 = Disease Activity Score of 28 joints. V0 (red): baseline, V12 (blue): follow-up after 12 months

Full size image

Discussion

To our knowledge, this present study is the first one describing the changes of FOI in a homogeneous cohort of patients with early and active RA over a period of 12 months under antirheumatic therapy.

Regarding clinical and laboratory disease activity, DAS28 decreased from high disease activity (DAS28 = 5.61) to moderate (DAS28 = 3.31) over the time period described. 31.4% of patients (n = 16) achieved remission of DAS28 < 2.6 under antirheumatic therapy.

Concerning FOI, we found significant reductions in the FOI sum score in phase 1 in the total cohort, whereas the other phases remained stable. These results are in line with previous results by Meier et al., who found a significant reduction in early signal intensity after 24 weeks of therapy using a computer-based evaluation of FOI [30]. In a study by Werner et al., phase 1 featured the highest agreement between clinical examination and FOI. In addition, the highest specificity was calculated for phase 1 compared to MRI and US in this study [21], which was also confirmed by Krohn et al. [24]. Besides, phase 1 did not show any pathological changes in a healthy cohort, confirming the hypothesis that this early phase reflects active inflammation with increased vascularization and therefore high clinical disease activity [21]. In a previous study, we examined FOI in patients with either osteoarthritis (OA) or RA. OA patients showed significantly less activity in phase 1 (maximum degree 1), but a consistently high signal accumulation in phase 2 (especially in the wrist) [26]. These results support the hypothesis that phase 1 detects an active inflammation [21, 22] since OA is usually characterized by a less pronounced inflammation as compared to systemic inflammatory joint diseases.

In our analysis, we did not find a significant correlation between the change of phase 1 and joint count. The lack of correlations between phase 1 and clinical parameters may be due to different parameters we assess in clinical examination and FOI. While we investigate a disturbed microcirculation in FOI, we document morphological changes in swollen fingers as a result of infiltrated cells in the synovial membrane and pannus. The impaired microcirculation visualized by FOI comprises neoangiogenesis, hyperperfusion, and capillary leakage within the inflammatory process of RA [36]. It may be assumed that both pathologies (microcirculation and morphological changes) within the articular region appear on different time points in the disease course. On the other hand, neoangiogenesis is an important component in the formation of pannus and, therefore, not only found around the inflamed joint [36]. Another explanation for the lack of correlation may be false-positive findings of FOI. However, Werner et al. demonstrated a low rate of false-positive findings between 0.5 and 5% by FOI [22]. Thus, our results stand in contrast to the results by Werner et al. who presented good agreement rates and low, but significant, correlations between FOI and clinical examination. It should be noted that FOI detects any inflammation including scratches, plaques, and insect bites. On this account, the evaluation requires a well-trained investigator [22]. However, the localization, form, and temporal distribution of enhancement in the individual FOI phases allow a differentiation [22] and may indicate the underlying pathology or possible disease [26].

In addition, Werner et al. suggested divergence between local inflammation in the hand and systemic inflammation [21]. Furthermore, high variance for components of the DAS28 was recently described [37], while FOI is a more objective technical tool.

After 1 year under csDMARD or bDMARD therapy, approximately 46% of the patients in our study achieved a clinical response stage according to the EULAR response criteria [32,33,34] and showed a reduction in disease activity according to the treat-to-target principle (T2T). The change in FOI sum scores was similar in patients with and without a clinical response. The significant reductions in phase 1 also in non-responders probably show a more objective reduction of inflammation by FOI, while the clinical non-response can also depend on individual person-related (i.e., psychological) factors which may lead to elevated global disease activity on VAS. Recently, Hammer et al. showed no association between tender joints and synovitis in GSUS and PDUS, while a strong correlation between swollen joints and US synovitis was calculated. In addition, they found a primary associationn between tender joints and patient-reported joint pain [38]. These findings support that the parameters of DAS28 hardly correlated with the sum scores of FOI also in this present study. Similar results for FOI were published by Werner et al. assuming different characteristics of pathologies [21].

We conducted correlation analyses between musculoskeletal ultrasound and FOI findings. At baseline examination, strong correlations were found between all FOI phases and the ultrasound parameters, especially tenosynovitis in PDUS. The strongest correlations were found for FOI phase 2 at both baseline and after 12 months of therapy. In contrast, phase 1 did only show a positive correlation with synovitis in GSUS after 12 months follow-up. The meaning of phase 2 as a marker of subclinical activity has already been discussed in previous studies [21, 22, 24]; however, no longitudinal data exist yet showing a predictive value of phase 2, for example in terms of erosive disease or flare prediction. The strong signal accumulation could be caused by increased vascularization due to chronic inflammation. The low correlations of phase 1 with US at month 12 may indicate that there was no or only a small amount of acute inflammation after 1 year of intensive therapy, whereas the greyscale US synovitis findings can persist. FOI phase 1 is probably a reflection of acute inflammation. A good response of early enhancement in FOI to therapeutic interventions demonstrated by Meier et al. showed a decrease of early signal intensity after 6 months in response to therapy [30].

Conclusions

In conclusion, activity in FOI phase 1 changed significantly over 1 year under therapy in the group of responders regarding the parameter of clinical remission (DAS28). However, a significant change of FOI phase 1 was also observed in non-responders, so we cannot objectively deduce a therapy response of phase 1. However, the correlation of FOI with ultrasound as a validated and well-established imaging technique in daily rheumatological practice should be emphasized. In the issue, the role of FOI in therapy monitoring needs to be investigated in further studies.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ACPA:

Anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies

bDMARDs:

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

BMBF:

Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung)

csDMARDs:

Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

CRP:

C-reactive protein

DAS28:

Disease Activity Score of 28 joints

DIP:

Distal interphalangeal joints

ESR:

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

EULAR:

European League Against Rheumatism

FOI :

Fluorescence optical imaging

FOIAS:

Fluorescence optical imaging activity score

GSUS:

Greyscale ultrasound

ICG:

Indocyanine green

IP:

Interphalangeal joint of the thumb

MCP:

Metacarpophalangeal joints

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

OA:

Osteoarthritis

PDUS:

Power Doppler mode, power Doppler ultrasound

PIP:

Proximal interphalangeal joints

PVM:

PrimaVistaMode

p1:

Phase 1 in FOI

p2:

Phase 2 in FOI

p3:

Phase 3 in FOI

RA:

Rheumatoid arthritis

RF:

Rheumatoid factor

SJC:

Swollen joint count

TJC:

Tender joint count

T2T:

Treat-to-target principle

US:

Musculoskeletal ultrasound, ultrasonography

VAS:

Visual analog scale

V0:

Baseline visit

V12:

Visit after 12 months

References

  1. 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(1):44–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Colebatch AN, Edwards CJ, Ostergaard M, van der Heijde D, Balint PV, D'Agostino MA, et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging of the joints in the clinical management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72(6):804–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Joshua F, Lassere M, Bruyn GA, Szkudlarek M, Naredo E, Schmidt WA, et al. Summary findings of a systematic review of the ultrasound assessment of synovitis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(4):839–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Backhaus M, Kamradt T, Sandrock D, Loreck D, Fritz J, Wolf KJ, et al. Arthritis of the finger joints: a comprehensive approach comparing conventional radiography, scintigraphy, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42(6):1232–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wakefield RJ, Gibbon WW, Conaghan PG, O'Connor P, McGonagle D, Pease C, et al. The value of sonography in the detection of bone erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with conventional radiography. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43(12):2762–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Szkudlarek M, Court-Payen M, Jacobsen S, Klarlund M, Thomsen HS, Ostergaard M. Interobserver agreement in ultrasonography of the finger and toe joints in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48(4):955–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Scheel AK, Hermann KG, Ohrndorf S, Werner C, Schirmer C, Detert J, et al. Prospective 7 year follow up imaging study comparing radiography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis finger joints. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(5):595–600.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ohrndorf S, Backhaus M. Advances in sonographic scoring of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72(Suppl 2):ii69–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Haavardsholm EA, Ostergaard M, Hammer HB, Boyesen P, Boonen A, van der Heijde D, et al. Monitoring anti-TNFalpha treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: responsiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography of the dominant wrist joint compared with conventional measures of disease activity and structural damage. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(10):1572–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Keen HI, Mease PJ, Bingham CO 3rd, Giles JT, Kaeley G, Conaghan PG. Systematic review of MRI, ultrasound, and scintigraphy as outcome measures for structural pathology in interventional therapeutic studies of knee arthritis: focus on responsiveness. J Rheumatol. 2011;38(1):142–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Beals C, Baumgartner R, Peterfy C, Balanescu A, Mirea G, Harabagiu A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the hand and wrist in a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial of infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of dynamic contrast enhanced assessments with semi-quantitative scoring. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0187397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ostendorf B, Scherer A, Backhaus M, Edelmann E, Kellner H, Schalm J, et al. Imaging techniques in rheumatology: magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis. Z Rheumatol. 2003;62(3):274–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Naredo E, Moller I, Cruz A, Carmona L, Garrido J. Power Doppler ultrasonographic monitoring of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(8):2248–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ammitzboll-Danielsen M, Ostergaard M, Naredo E, Iagnocco A, Moller I, D'Agostino MA, et al. The use of the OMERACT ultrasound tenosynovitis scoring system in multicenter clinical trials. J Rheumatol. 2018;45(2):165–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kamishima T, Tanimura K, Shimizu M, Matsuhashi M, Fukae J, Kon Y, et al. Monitoring anti-interleukin 6 receptor antibody treatment for rheumatoid arthritis by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of the hand and power Doppler ultrasonography of the finger. Skelet Radiol. 2011;40(6):745–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nishino A, Kawashiri SY, Koga T, Iwamoto N, Ichinose K, Tamai M, et al. Ultrasonographic Efficacy of Biologic and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis From a Multicenter Rheumatoid Arthritis Ultrasound Prospective Cohort in Japan. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70(12):1719–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schmidt WA, Backhaus M, Sattler H, Kellner H, Kommission "Bildgebende Verfahren DGfR. [Imaging techniques in rheumatology: sonography in rheumatoid arthritis]. Z Rheumatol 2003;62(1):23–33.

  18. Fischer T, Gemeinhardt I, Wagner S, Stieglitz DV, Schnorr J, Hermann KG, et al. Assessment of unspecific near-infrared dyes in laser-induced fluorescence imaging of experimental arthritis. Acad Radiol. 2006;13(1):4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Meier R, Krug C, Golovko D, Boddington S, Piontek G, Rudelius M, et al. Indocyanine green-enhanced imaging of antigen-induced arthritis with an integrated optical imaging/radiography system. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(8):2322–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fischer T, Ebert B, Voigt J, Macdonald R, Schneider U, Thomas A, et al. Detection of rheumatoid arthritis using non-specific contrast enhanced fluorescence imaging. Acad Radiol. 2010;17(3):375–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Werner SG, Langer HE, Ohrndorf S, Bahner M, Schott P, Schwenke C, et al. Inflammation assessment in patients with arthritis using a novel in vivo fluorescence optical imaging technology. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(4):504–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Werner SG, Langer HE, Schott P, Bahner M, Schwenke C, Lind-Albrecht G, et al. Indocyanine green-enhanced fluorescence optical imaging in patients with early and very early arthritis: a comparative study with magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65(12):3036–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Schafer VS, Hartung W, Hoffstetter P, Berger J, Stroszczynski C, Muller M, et al. Quantitative assessment of synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using fluorescence optical imaging. Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15(5):R124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Krohn M, Ohrndorf S, Werner SG, Schicke B, Burmester GR, Hamm B, et al. Near-infrared fluorescence optical imaging in early rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison to magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. J Rheumatol. 2015;42(7):1112–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kisten Y, Gyori N, Af Klint E, Rezaei H, Levitsky A, Karlsson A, et al. Detection of clinically manifest and silent synovitis in the hands and wrists by fluorescence optical imaging. RMD Open. 2015;1(1):e000106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Glimm AM, Werner SG, Burmester GR, Backhaus M, Ohrndorf S. Analysis of distribution and severity of inflammation in patients with osteoarthitis compared to rheumatoid arthritis by ICG-enhanced fluorescence optical imaging and musculoskeletal ultrasound: a pilot study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(3):566–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cherrick GR, Stein SW, Leevy CM, Davidson CS. Indocyanine green: observations on its physical properties, plasma decay, and hepatic extraction. J Clin Invest. 1960;39:592–600.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Alander JT, Kaartinen I, Laakso A, Patila T, Spillmann T, Tuchin VV, et al. A review of indocyanine green fluorescent imaging in surgery. Int J Biomed Imaging. 2012;2012:940585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Reinhart MB, Huntington CR, Blair LJ, Heniford BT, Augenstein VA. Indocyanine green: historical context, current applications, and future considerations. Surg Innov. 2016;23(2):166–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Meier R, Thuermel K, Noel PB, Moog P, Sievert M, Ahari C, et al. Synovitis in patients with early inflammatory arthritis monitored with quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced optical imaging and MR imaging. Radiology. 2014;270(1):176–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pages: https://www.arthromark.de/index.php. Access 3 July 2019.

  32. van Gestel AM, Prevoo ML, Van’t Hof MA, van Rijswijk MH, van de Putte LB, van Riel PL. Development and validation of the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison with the preliminary American College of Rheumatology and the World Health Organization/International League Against Rheumatism Criteria. Arthritis Rheum. 1996;39(1):34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. van Gestel AM, Haagsma CJ, van Riel PL. Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. Arthritis Rheum. 1998;41(10):1845–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. van Gestel AM, Anderson JJ, van Riel PL, Boers M, Haagsma CJ, Rich B, et al. ACR and EULAR improvement criteria have comparable validity in rheumatoid arthritis trials. American College of Rheumatology European League of Associations for Rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1999;26(3):705–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Team RC. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gompels LL, Lim NH, Vincent T, Paleolog EM. In vivo optical imaging in arthritis--an enlightening future? Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49(8):1436–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Siemons L, ten Klooster PM, Vonkeman HE, van de Laar MA, Glas CA. Further optimization of the reliability of the 28-joint disease activity score in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e100544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hammer HB, Michelsen B, Sexton J, Haugen IK, Provan SA, Haavardsholm EA, Uhlig T, Kvien TK. Swollen, but not tender joints, are independently associated with ultrasound synovitis: results from a longitudinal observational study of patients with established rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(9):1179–85. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the study nurses Gabriela Schmittat and Silvia Pade for logistical and technical assistance. In this paper, a part of the results of the dissertation of LIS “The role of fluorescence-optical imaging Xiralite® in therapy monitoring of patients with early, active rheumatoid arthritis - in comparison to clinical parameters and musculoskeletal ultrasound”, submitted in 2018 to the Charité–Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany, is presented.

Funding

The study was supported by the BMBF (German ministry for education and research) funded project “ArthroMark” subproject No.7.

The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Anne-Marie Glimm, Lisa Ines Sprenger, Sandra Hermann, Thomas Häupl, Paula Hoff, Gerd-Rüdiger Burmester, Marina Backhaus & Sarah Ohrndorf

  2. Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Ida Kristin Haugen

  3. Institut für medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie (IBE), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Ulrich Mansmann & Lien Le

  4. Innere Medizin – Bereich Rheumatologie und Klinische Immunologie, Park-Klinik Weißensee, Berlin, Germany

    Marina Backhaus

Authors
  1. Anne-Marie Glimm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Ines Sprenger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ida Kristin Haugen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulrich Mansmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sandra Hermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas Häupl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paula Hoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gerd-Rüdiger Burmester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marina Backhaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Lien Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sarah Ohrndorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AMG, LIS, TH, MB, and SO contributed substantially to the conception and design of the study. AMG, LIS, IKH, UM, LL, GRB, and SO made substantial contributions to acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data. LL performed the statistical analyses. AMG, LIS, LL, and SO drafted the paper. AMG, LIS, IKH, SH, TH, PH, GRB, MB, LL, and SO revised the article for important intellectual content. All authors gave final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Ohrndorf.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the local Medical Ethical Committee of the Charité – Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany. All patients provided informed consent to participate in the study.

Consent for publication

All patients provided informed consent to publish the data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1.

The supplementary material gives further information on methods including patient consent, EULAR response criteria and ultrasound. It reveals additional results of FOIAS in phases 1-3 and PVM (PrimaVistaMode) of FOI at baseline and after 12 months as well as correlation to number of clinically affected joints with DIP joint excluded in the analyses. (DOCX 39 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glimm, AM., Sprenger, L.I., Haugen, I.K. et al. Fluorescence optical imaging for treatment monitoring in patients with early and active rheumatoid arthritis in a 1-year follow-up period. Arthritis Res Ther 21, 209 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-019-1989-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-019-1989-5

Keywords

Arthritis Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1478-6362

Contact us