RA (Rheumatoid Arthritis) Sucks

Statistics and Scare Tactics: Pet Peeve

You know, I think that with the exception of RA (and maybe people who don't appreciate port... okay, and people who park like douches... and VA Tech fans... and... well, nevermind), nothing pisses me off more than the use of scare statistics -- those statistics that inculcate fear rather than education or knowledge on the part of those who hear them.

Let me give you a good (i.e., totally shitty) example of one such report that I read today. It comes from a Johns Hopkins medical alert: 

The association between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and cancer is not completely clear. Some studies show an increased risk of cancer in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) while others show a decreased risk. But the picture becomes clearer when researchers look at specific cancer types.

Lymphoma. The strongest evidence of a link appears to be between lymphoma -- the most common type of blood cancer -- and severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Researchers from Sweden examined data from nearly 75,000 RA patients, 378 of whom had lymphoma. The researchers assessed risk for three different levels of disease activity (low, moderate, and severe) and found that people with moderate disease activity were eight times more likely to have lymphoma than those who had low disease activity, while those with severe disease activity were 70 times more likely.

More support for a connection comes from a review of 21 published studies, including the Swedish study and 13 others that tried to determine whether there was a link between lymphoma and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The findings, reported recently in Arthritis Research & Therapy, showed that overall, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were twice as likely as the general population to develop lymphoma, particularly Hodgkin's lymphoma (one of the most curable types of cancer when detected early).

Lung cancer. The same review also reported that lung cancer was observed more often in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Based on data from 12 studies, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were 63% more likely to develop lung cancer than the general population.

Okay, so you read these statistics, and you get alarmed: "Holy shit! Oh Em Gee! I have RA! I'm going to get lymphoma or lung cancer!"

Now, I'm not saying you're not going to get one of those diseases, but the statistics that Johns Hopkins has provided are next to meaningless because they omit some incredibly critical information: namely, the incidence of each disease in the general population.

Huh? F*ck the what are you talking about, Kim?

Well, according to the lung cancer study, people with RA are 63% more likely to develop lung cancer than the general population. Oooh: scary. But, what's the incidence of lung cancer in the general population? For example, if it's 1 in a million, are you going to be worried about having a 1.63 in a million chance of developing lung cancer over your lifetime? Hardly.

Want to know what the relevant stats are? For men and women combined, in the general population, there is a 1 in 14.5 chance of developing lung cancer, which calculates to a 6.9% chance of developing said cancer. Thus, for RAers, who are 63% more likely to develop lung cancer than the general population, there is an 11.2% chance of developing lung cancer. RA increases the risk of developing lung cancer by 4.3 percent. RAers thus have about a 1 in 10 chance of developing lung cancer. It's not quite so scary now, is it? 

And what about Hodgkin's lymphoma (the most common type of lymphoma developed by RAers)? Well, crap. In the general population, there is a 1 in 438 chance of developing said disease. In other words, there is a 0.2% chance of a "normal" person developing Hodgkin's lymphoma. If RAers are twice as likely as people in the general population to develop this cancer, that means RAers have a 0.4% chance of developing Hodgkin's disease. (I'm aware that these stats are not spot on, simply because the article didn't tease out the varying lymphomas. But you get the picture, don't you?)

Mark Twain once famously said that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Stop all the worrying, and don't let the statistics damn your life!

Well, I'm Back....

So, I've had a rough couple of months. I won't go into all the crap that has surfaced (because it IS crap, and no one should should be made to smell, see, or step in crap if it can possibly be avoided. I mean, think of all those intricate patterns on the bottoms of our sneakers....).

I will, however, detail an aggravating RA-related issue that finally was resolved as of yesterday.

When last I saw my RD, a few weeks ago (for general and post-surgical follow-up), I had complained of more pain than usual. Consequently, she wanted me to have an ultrasound done at the great-and-highly-vaunted Northwestern Memorial Hospital here in Chi-town to determine how well the Enbrel was working. My RD frequently sends patients to Northwestern for US's, since "they're the best and they know what they're doing.")

(Side note: I'd been off the Enbrel for the surgery, and it was possible that I still hadn't reached a therapeutic level.)

Now, it's important to remember: I've had two other US's done previously. The first revealed inflammation; the second, inflammation and erosions. However, they were read by a group out in CA with whom my RD isn't familiar.

Anyway, I went to GHV-NMH (that's "Great-and-Highly-Vaunted Northwestern Memorial Hospital) and had the US done. The radiologist said, "I'm not seeing any evidence of RA. No inflammation, and any erosions are osteoarthritic." 

"So do I have RA?" I asked.

"I couldn't tell you that," he said. "You'll have to talk with your rheumatologist."

"Well, fuck me sideways," I thought. "Maybe I don't have RA?!?! I mean, since I've always been seronegative, I've always had this nagging doubt about the diagnosis anyway. Of course, even if I don't have it, I'll have to figure out what in hell I DO have...."

I was seriously perturbed.

When I got home, I called my RD. "I don't understand," she said. "Even if you had no inflammation, the erosions should still be there and visible on the US. Erosions never go away."

Subsequently, I managed to track down the actual films of the last Non-GHV-NMH US (wow, is that an acronym, or what?) and sent them to my RD, who sent them along to GHV-NMH radiology to ask them to do a comparison between those films and their films.

By the time I arrived at my RD's office, she still hadn't heard anything from GHV-NMH about film comparisons. She had, however, received the US report, which stated "Completely normal US."

We did some brainstorming and went to review some of my xrays. She saw what she thought was bone-thinning in my feet, and thinning and erosions in my hands. But she wanted to check it out with their radiologist -- if he was on duty.

She returned several minutes later.

"He confirms what I saw. So, you do have RA."

Subsequently, we talked about my meds and our respective poor attempts at dieting (sigh).

I'm continuing on the Enbrel since it seems to be keeping the inflammation at bay. But I'll still have bad days, when the pain and inflammation are present. And I'll always have the erosions, which can be painful no matter what.

So I guess this is as good as it's gonna get.

And I'm okay with that.

But what about GHV-NMH? Doesn't it suck that an enormously well-respected institution can screw up so badly that they can't see on a more-sensitive US results that are evident on xrays?

"What are you going to do about that?" I asked my RD.

"I don't know. I guess I'll have to wait to see how they respond to my request for a comparison."