Rheumatoid Factor Confusion!!!! | Arthritis Information

After reading Bubagump's message about having a positive RA factor without RA, I googled Positive RA factor and ended up at an "arthritis.about.com" article where you can participate in a poll about your RA factor. Even though, the article states that 80% of those with RA have a positive factor, the result of their poll shows something quite different - 45% are seronegative and 32% seropositive. Can anyone shed light on this for me? I realize it's not quite scientific, but about 2000 people have supposedly taken this poll! Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Here is the URL for the article with a link to the poll and results:

http://arthritis.about.com/od/rasymptoms/l/blrheumfactor.htm

Personally, as a sero-negative RA'er I think that those statistics could possibly be old data and some sero-negative people do turn sero-positive down the road. I do agree that there are more than 20% of the people with RA who are sero-negative.

I am also sero-negative and finding more and more people that are sero negative. I do not know if I will ever switch over to positive since I have been sero-negative for many years. I did find an article that said people can be healthy with a positive RA factor and it can not really be explained. The article stated that the positive factor is very low in these cases.

This makes such a good point of why our docs need to look at the forest thru the trees. Not only does that help with a diagnosis of RA...but also ruling out RA.

when i was dxd i had a postitive RH factor but with all the meds i am on right now my blood work shows that im steronegative. And it goes up and down depending on the meds im on which dont make any sense to me right now. Any ideas?

I started out seropositive and as of yesterday, am seronegative so what
gives. I don't understand it. I would think that if this test yeilds such
results, why do we even do it? I mean, what is this test really telling us?
Maybe it is just a big waste of money.that poll wasn't really scientific but I think the stats are one of the reasons that way too much emphasis is placed on the rheumatoid factor. Hopefully as the anti-ccp prooves to be more diagnositcally relavent the rheumatoid factor will lose its power

Remember that a high RF is only one of the diagnostic criteria for RA. If you have 4 of the symptoms below you can be dianosed with RA. My RF is very high but I do not have a high SED or CRP. I do however meet 5 of the criteria below as well as having a family history of autoimmune diseases. My RD did not even blink when diagnosing me.

-------pulled off Wikipedia although it is in other places as well -----

The American College of Rheumatology has defined (1987) the following criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis:^[3]

Morning stiffness of >1 hour.
Arthritis and soft-tissue swelling of >3 of 14 joints/joint groups
Arthritis of hand joints
Symmetric arthritis
Subcutaneous nodules in specific places
Rheumatoid factor at a level above the 95th percentile
Radiological changes suggestive of joint erosion

At least four criteria have to be met for classification as RA.

I'm curious if RA is dx'ed more often as "sero-negative" than it was years ago when this "20%" was determined. I tend to think back then they didn't call it RA as often as they might these days. I don't know....but it's certainly a mystery to many of us.

On my last visit my rheumy told me that she pretty much reserves the RA diagnosis for sero-positive only. I was taken aback by that given all the info I've seen regarding the unreliability of using the rheumatoid factor alone for diagnosis. She still treats me as though I have RA (I'm on MTX and Plaquenil) and my family doc says I definitely have RA.

[QUOTE=CathyC]

[/QUOTE]

Same here. When I was first diagnosed I was diagnosed as Seronegative. At that point he stated that my Seronegative diagnosis was based on my symptoms meeting a certain criteria and said I was in the early stages of RA and he began treatment with a mild DMARD. However, even though he stated I was Seronegative, no official RA diagnosis was put down on paper at that time. After my bloodwork went positive (6) weeks later, my Rheumy then put an official diagnosis of Seropositive RA down and he began more aggresive treatment.

Ta2d39196.5571990741I'm another seronegative RA'er. Even though I'm sero-negative, my doc has me on MTX and Enbrel.

Actually I don't think my RH factor has been tested in over a year, so who knows, I might be positive now.

I have a suspicion that less and less people are sero-positive now because rheumys in general are treating RA more aggressively. I think that some people might become sero-positive if they weren't receiving the treatments they are. I remember reading somewhere that a lot more than 20% are sero-negative at the intitial onset of RA, but will develop a positive RH factor within the first year or two. Maybe if these people are now receiving more agressive treatment than they would have in the past they'll never switch to sero-positive.

dordale :)

I've had RA for 25 years and my RA factor has always been negative so I'm classed as having seronegative RA.

I came across this link a few months ago. http://www.pdrhealth.com/patient_education/BHG01RH15.shtml

It states that about 80% of people with RA have a positive RF. It also mentions that seronegative RA tends to be milder than the seropositive type. Years ago my first rheumie told me that my type of RA would progress very slowly and she was right... for 24 years my RA was mild. It was only last July that I experienced a big flare, hot swollen joints, overall stiffness in the morning and after inactivity.

I am fortunate that both my rheumatologists have not relied heavily on the RF. and treat me according to my symptoms.