Monarticular rheumatoid arthritis of the elbow

  1. Adianez Santiago 1,
  2. Susanne M Crespo-Ramos 2,
  3. María Correa-Rivas 2 and
  4. Luis M Vilá 1
  1. 1 Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan, Puerto Rico
  2. 2 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan, Puerto Rico
  1. Correspondence to Dr Luis M Vilá; luis.vila2@upr.edu

Publication history

Accepted:08 Feb 2022
First published:07 Mar 2022
Online issue publication:07 Mar 2022

Case reports

Case reports are not necessarily evidence-based in the same way that the other content on BMJ Best Practice is. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice. Please check the date of publication.

Abstract

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterised by symmetric inflammatory polyarthritis. However, RA limited to a single joint is extremely rare. Here, we report a middle-aged woman who presented with insidious right elbow arthritis. She had no other peripheral joint pain, tenderness or swelling. She had high-positive anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. An MRI of the right elbow showed capsular distension, joint effusion and bone marrow oedema. Synovial biopsy revealed hyperplasia with lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate consistent with RA. Therapy with methotrexate 7.5 mg orally weekly was effective to control her inflammatory arthritis. This case highlights the relevance of synovial tissue analysis for patients presenting with chronic inflammatory monarthritis when the cause is not clinically evident, and the importance of considering RA even in the absence of polyarticular involvement. Delayed diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory monarthritis can lead to joint destruction and disability.

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease manifested by polyarticular and symmetric joint inflammation.1 The worldwide prevalence of RA is about 0.5%–1% and occurs more frequently in middle-aged women.2 The exact aetiopathogenesis of RA is still unclear, but demographical, immunogenetic, epigenetic and environmental factors play important roles.3 The consequence of chronic joint inflammation in RA patients includes disability and poorer general health with increased morbidity and mortality.4

Classification for RA, as described by the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) criteria, includes the presence of arthritis of multiple peripheral joints in association with elevated acute phase reactants (C reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)), positive RA serological tests (rheumatoid factor (RF) and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) antibody) and symptoms duration of 6 weeks or longer.5 The current classification system does not account for arthritis limited to a single large joint, nor does it include synovial tissue biopsy findings or imaging studies that may further assist in the diagnosis of RA. The elbow joint, considered a large joint by the ACR/EULAR criteria, is involved in up to 30% of cases of patients with RA.6 7 Furthermore, monarticular presentation of RA has been rarely reported.8 9 Here, we present a case of a middle-aged woman with monarticular RA of the elbow. To the best of our knowledge, only one case of RA limited the elbow has been previously reported.10

Case presentation

We present a middle-aged woman with arterial hypertension and a work-related trauma to the right arm and neck that occurred 5 years before our initial evaluation. Three years after the trauma, she began to experience neck pain and limited range of motion. An MRI of the cervical spine showed 25%–50% height loss of C4 vertebral body posteriorly and C5 central posterior compression deformity. One year later, she underwent posterior C4–C6 fusion, but the cervical wound did not heal well and was draining a serosanguineous fluid for which she was hospitalised for intravenous antibiotic therapy, and wound cleansing and debridement. She was discharged home to complete intravenous antibiotic therapy and receive hyperbaric oxygen therapy. She improved, but after 1 year she was hospitalised once again due to wound dehiscence and suppuration of the cervical wound requiring cervical spine cleansing and debridement surgery. Concurrently, she had a 1-year history of progressive right elbow pain, warmth, intermittent swelling and limited range of motion for which she was consulted to the rheumatology service. She had no history of arthralgias other than the right upper extremity and neck regions, and no tiredness, anorexia, weight loss, ocular symptoms, chest pain, cough, shortness of breath, abdominal pain, diarrhoea or skin rashes. Also, she had no family history of autoimmune rheumatic diseases such as RA, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjogren’s syndrome, and psoriatic arthritis.

On initial physical examination, temperature was 36.4°C, heart rate was 80 beats per minute and blood pressure was 155/83 mm Hg. On musculoskeletal (MSK) examination, she had limited range of motion of the neck due to pain associated with recent surgical intervention and mild erythema. She had right elbow swelling, warmth, tenderness, crepitus and limited extension and flexion. In addition, she had right wrist limited range of motion due to a previous surgical fusion of the joint secondary to trauma. No other MSK abnormalities were found. She had no subcutaneous nodules. The rest of the physical examination was unremarkable.

Investigations

Laboratory tests revealed a white blood cell (WBC) count of 6.6 × 109 /L, haemoglobin of 132 g/L and platelet count of 295 × 109 /L. Blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine levels and liver enzyme levels were normal. Urinalysis showed 0–3 red blood cells (RBC)/high-power field (hpf), 0–4 WBC/hpf and no proteinuria. Westergren ESR was 26 mm/hour. Anti-CCP antibodies were strongly positive at 217 units (normal range: <20 units), but RF was negative at 12.9 units/mL (normal range: 0–18 units/mL). Antinuclear antibodies were positive with a titre of 1:160 and a homogenous pattern. Anti-Smith, anti-ribonucleoprotein (RNP), anti-Ro and anti-La antibodies were negative. Complements C3 and C4 levels were normal.

Right elbow X-rays showed displacement of the anterior and posterior fat pad indicative of intra-articular joint effusion. No radiographical changes of degenerative joint disease were observed. Cervical spine MRI showed degenerative disease worse at C3–C4 level with posterior disc osteophytes and mild bilateral facet arthropathy causing moderate to severe spinal canal stenosis as well as mild right and moderate left neural foraminal stenosis. Right elbow MRI showed gross joint capsular distension with a heterogeneous intra-articular fluid component. In addition, fat saturation and short-tau inversion recovery sequences disclosed high-intensity signalling involving the bone marrow compartment of the proximal radius and ulna (figure 1). Synovial tissue biopsy revealed hyperplasia with an exuberant lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate with occasional multinucleated giant cells and focal acutely inflamed fibrinous deposits (figure 2). Synovial tissue and fluid cultures were negative. Examination of synovial fluid under polarised microscopy did not reveal crystals. Synovial fluid taken to determine cell count was clotted; therefore, the test could not be performed.

Figure 1

MRI of right elbow without contrast: gross elbow joint capsular distension with a heterogeneous intra-articular fluid component. Fat saturation and short-tau inversion recovery sequences show high intensity signal involving the bone marrow compartment of the proximal radius and ulna in which the presence of a possible underlying bone marrow oedematous process.

Figure 2

Biopsy of the right synovium. (A–C) Different areas of papillary chronic synovitis with exuberant lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates, lymphoid follicles and focal fibrinous exudates in B and C (H&E 40×). (D) Synovial hyperplasia, exuberant lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates, multinucleated giant cells and acute fibrinous exudate (bottom) (H&E 100×). (E) Synovial hyperplasia, lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates and multinucleated giant cells (lower right) (H&E 100×). (F) Higher magnification (H&E 400×).

Differential diagnosis

In the setting of monarticular inflammation, the differential diagnosis includes seronegative inflammatory arthritis, trauma, crystal-induced arthropathy, septic arthritis and erosive/inflammatory osteoarthritis. However, these possibilities were excluded. She had no clinical or imaging findings consistent with psoriatic arthritis or reactive arthritis. Although she had a work-related trauma that involved her neck and right arm, she did not experience swelling or warmth of the right elbow until 3 years after the incident. In regards of a crystal-associated arthropathy, synovial fluid examination showed no evidence of crystals such as monosodium urate monohydrate, calcium pyrophosphate dehydrate or calcium oxalate crystals. Septic arthritis was excluded as synovial fluid and tissue cultures were negative. Finally, our patient had no radiographical evidence of osteoarthritis on plain X-ray of the right elbow. Although the synovial biopsy in patients with inflammatory osteoarthritis may present with non-specific synovitis, the presence of exuberant lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate and multinucleated giant cells, as in our case, is extremely unlikely.

Treatment

During the patient’s hospitalisation, she was not initially started on any disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) due to concomitant infection with Staphylococcus epidermidis of the cervical wound. She was given intravenous antibiotic therapy for 10 days during hospitalisation and was discharged home to complete 14 days of oral antibiotics. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection of the elbow was recommended to reduce pain and inflammation, but the patient declined this option as she did not want the elbow to be manipulated any further.

Outcome and follow-up

Two months after discharge from the hospital, she had persistent pain and swelling of the right elbow. She was started on sulfasalazine 1 g orally two times per day. However, she did not tolerate sulfasalazine for which she was switched to methotrexate 7.5 mg orally weekly. She had a good response to this treatment. Seven months after discharge the patient has been doing well, with significant improvement of pain and swelling of the right elbow. During the follow-up period she did not develop any other peripheral joint involvement and no extra-articular manifestations.

Discussion

We present a case of monarticular RA limited to the right elbow. The clinical presentation of a monarticular RA is rare; furthermore, the initial manifestation of elbow involvement is uncommon. Although large joint involvement has a greater impact on functional ability, these large joints are not monitored as regularly as small joints; thus, few studies focus on the disease manifestations of large joints, especially the elbow.11 Elbow involvement in RA usually presents bilaterally with slow radiographical progression and usually is a late manifestation of the disease.

Our patient had an insidious onset of right elbow pain, swelling and decreased range of motion over the course of 1 year. Any patient presenting with monarthritis should have a thorough history taken and should be carefully examined to exclude infection, trauma, crystal deposition or neoplasm. Nonetheless, the subtle onset of symptoms should prompt the clinician to further suspect an inflammatory arthritis such as RA. Delayed recognition and treatment of RA, although limited to one joint, can lead to further joint destruction and disability.3 9 In a study that evaluated the synovium of 34 patients with non-specific monarthritis, 15% progressed to RA within 5 years. The joints involved, in order of frequency, were the knees, wrists, hips, ankles and elbows. The latter was observed in only one patient. The synovial tissue was retrospectively analysed after diagnosis of RA and showed that those who developed RA were more likely to initially have lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates.12 These findings highlight the importance of synovial tissue biopsy in the earliest stages of RA, especially if limited to a single joint.

There are a limited number of cases that report monarticular RA, particularly of the wrist, knee, ankle and metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints.8–10 In a case series of monarticular RA, four patients presented with monarticular pain (ankle, knee, MCP and knee) of greater than 6 months duration. On further evaluation with imaging studies and serological studies, all four patients had evidence of inflammatory arthritis and the presence of anti-CCP antibodies.9 Anti-CCP antibodies are highly specific for RA and their presence may precede symptom onset by many years.13 However, 20%–30% of RA patients do not have the presence of anti-CCP antibodies or RF, for which they are termed seronegative. Nonetheless, these patients may still endure the damaging consequences of RA.14

Other studies show that 40% of patients with early RA are not diagnosed during the most important initial stages of disease when timely treatment is crucial.15 Identifying early disease with diagnostic tests which are not included in the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification for RA would be beneficial for patients, especially those with a single joint presentation. Diagnostic tests, such as low-cost imaging studies with MSK ultrasound, can reveal joint effusion and hypervascularisation in RA. In one study, comparing elbow joints of patients with RA and controls without rheumatological disease, joint effusion was observed in 54.9% vs 6.9%, and hypervascularisation in 6.8% vs 0%. MSK ultrasound was able to detect elbow RA in 35% of this population.16 In addition, MRI is a more sensitive imaging tool that can be used to identify early inflammation, soft tissue involvement and joint damage. The use of MRI in conjunction with a proper history and physical examination can help diagnose RA in its earliest stages.17

It is known that certain biomarkers such as RF and anti-CCP may be observed in asymptomatic patients that may later progress to RA. The period during which immune abnormalities are observed before the development of clinically evident RA is termed pre-RA. In the setting of pre-RA, synovial tissue analysis, which has been widely studied with the goal of understanding the pathogenesis of RA, may contribute to the diagnosis of RA. For instance, poor outcomes have been reported in patients with synovial biopsies that display a lympho-myeloid pattern in early stages of disease.18 These patients were more likely to require biological therapy later in the course of their disease, despite they did not initially fulfil the classification criteria of RA.

The 2021 ACR guidelines for the treatment of RA recommend a treat-to-target strategy with DMARDs monotherapy.19 This strategy aims to achieve remission and avoid further radiographical joint damage. In the case of our patient, the decision to start treatment was conflicting, because she did not fully meet the ACR/EULAR classification criteria of RA due to her monarticular involvement. Despite this, she had positive anti-CCP antibodies and a synovial biopsy that was consistent with RA. In a study that included patients with inflammatory arthritis of at least one joint for less than 1 year of disease duration, lowering the cut-off from 6 to 5 of the ACR/EULAR RA classification criteria of RA, 15% more RA patients were identified.20 On the other hand, although treating patients with arthritis that only score 5 points in the classification system may seem favourable, the undesirable effects on false positive patients cannot be underestimated. However, it is important to stress the fact that classification criteria are not diagnostic criteria. Although classification criteria are helpful in providing a patient with a specific diagnosis, these are primarily established to create distinct, relatively uniform cohorts for clinical research. Furthermore, initiating a trial with DMARDs should be considered for patients with inflammatory arthritis regardless of whether criteria are met or not after excluding infectious aetiologies and other causes of arthritis.

In summary, we present the case of a monarticular RA of the elbow. The suspicion of this unusual presentation should raise the concern for an inflammatory arthritis such as RA despite the monarticular involvement. A thorough clinical evaluation to start early treatment and avoid disease progression and disability should be considered on a case-to-case basis. Also, this case underscores the importance of synovial tissue analysis for patients presenting with chronic inflammatory monarthritis. A biopsy is critical to establish the diagnosis for difficult cases in which the diagnosis is not clinically evident, particularly to exclude other diseases in the differential diagnosis such as malignancies, sarcoidosis and other infiltrative/inflammatory or chronic infectious diseases.

Patient’s perspective

The experience of being recently diagnosed with RA has been beneficial to me because I was able to receive the treatment I needed. Since then, I have felt relief from the pain that affected my quality of life. The process was not easy because I decided to undergo several surgical interventions that have led to prolonged hospitalisations and some complications related to surgeries. However, every day, I regain my strength to continue on my journey towards recovery. Today, I enjoy of an improved quality of life thanks to the doctors that have provided me with the help and support that I needed.

Learning points

  • Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic inflammatory autoimmune disease manifested by polyarticular and symmetrical joint inflammation.

  • RA limited to a single joint is extremely rare.

  • We present a case of monarticular RA of the elbow confirmed by synovial tissue biopsy.

  • Histopathological examination of synovial tissue is an important tool in the evaluation of inflammatory monarthritis when the cause is not clinically evident, particularly to exclude malignancies, chronic infectious diseases and other infiltrative/inflammatory conditions.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Footnotes

  • Contributors I certify that all authors have participated sufficiently in this work to take responsibility for the work and to qualify as authors as defined in the Uniform Requirement for Manuscript Submitted to Biomedical Journals. The following are the contributions for each author: (1) Substantial contribution to acquisition of data (AS, SMC-R, MC-R, LMV). (2) Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content (AS, SMC-R, MC-R, LMV). (3) Final approval of the version of the article to be published (AS, SMC-R, MC-R, LMV).

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Case reports provide a valuable learning resource for the scientific community and can indicate areas of interest for future research. They should not be used in isolation to guide treatment choices or public health policy.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

References

Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer