Citations

ObjectiveThe epidemiology and clinical characteristics of sarcoid arthropathy are not well described, as only referral‐based studies have been reported. This study aimed to use the data from a geographically well‐defined population to characterize the clinical characteristics of sarcoid arthropathy.MethodsAn inception cohort of patients with incident sarcoidosis in the years 1976–2013 in a geographically well‐defined population was identified based on comprehensive individual medical records review. Inclusion required physician diagnosis supported by histopathology and radiologic features of intrathoracic sarcoidosis, compatible clinical presentation, and exclusion of other granulomatous diseases. Patients with joint pain were then identified from this cohort.ResultsIn 1976–2013, all 345 incident cases of sarcoidosis were identified. Symptoms of joint pain occurred in 42 patients (mean age 41.2 years, 57.1% female, and 95% white), and 35 patients had swollen joint(s) on physical examination. Most patients had arthralgia prior to the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, with an average time to diagnosis of 21 days. Of the 35 cases, oligoarthritis (2 to 4 joints) was the most common pattern (88% of cases), followed by monoarthritis (6%) and polyarthritis (6%). Ankles were involved in 91% of cases. In the majority of patients (88%), the arthritis resolved within 6 weeks. Classic Lofgren's syndrome was observed in 11 patients (26%).ConclusionInflammatory arthritis occurs in a minority of patients with sarcoidosis. Acute oligoarthritis with bilateral ankle involvement was the most common pattern of sarcoid arthropathy. It should be noted that the generalizability of the results may be limited, as the cohort was predominantly white.

Background: The best treatment option for patients with Graves' disease (GD) depends on each person's situation and how the differences between the treatment options matter to them in bringing resolution to their illness. The objective of this study was to develop and test an encounter decision tool (GD Choice) for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making about the treatment of GD. Methods: GD Choice was developed using an iterative process based on the principles of interaction design and participatory action research. To evaluate the impact of the tool, a controlled before–after study was conducted, assessing the use of GD Choice versus usual care (UC). Results: Sixty-eight patients were enrolled, 37 to UC and 31 to GD Choice. At baseline, the groups were similar. Treatment discussion length was similar in both arms. After their visit, patients in both groups had similar knowledge about the options, except for GD Choice patients knowing significantly more about the complications of treatment (correctly answered by 83% vs. 55%; p = 0.04). Compared with UC, patients in the GD Choice arm had greater involvement in decision making observed on video recordings of clinical encounters (mean OPTION scale score, 35% vs. 30%; p = 0.02), but reported similar levels of decisional comfort and participation in shared decision making. Conclusions: GD Choice increases engagement in the decision-making process and knowledge regarding intervention complications without increasing the length of consultation. These promising results support the conduct of a randomized trial of GD Choice versus UC in a large multicenter trial.