Reactive Arthritis (ReA) is not a chronic disease, that's why it doesn't have place on this forum.
I no longer regularly participate in these forums. But, I was recently diagnosed with "reactive arthritis" (ReA) and therefore searched the forums for that term. Doing so turned up this somewhat out-of-date thread, to which I feel compelled to respond.
It is true that many patients diagnosed with ReA experience an acute illness that dissipates when an associated infection is cured, and have no ongoing symptoms. However, many other patients experience arthritis symptoms that persist long after the triggering infection has subsided. These patients should be considered to suffer from a chronic arthritis.
One quite readable source that can be used to verify this information is found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_arthritis
. This source estimates that about
40% of patients diagnosed with ReA can anticipate experiencing a chronic form of the disease. Elsewhere, I have generally seen somewhat lower estimates.
Based on this information, I respectfully encourage members of this forum to provide a "place" for those suffering from ReA. The disease is not common. But, its symptoms and consequences are no less serious than those of many other more common forms of arthritis.
Yep wbisme you are right about
everything you said about
ReA. I did not express myself enough clear to be understood correct, It's my fault again, and it happens often to me, sorry about
that, I say apologize to Brandon mostly if he has also understood me incorrect. I ment that ReA is primary not a chronic condition, thats the reason that we don't see that much reactive arthritis sufferers on the arthritis forum, not that ReA sufferers are banned here
. Personally I know young girl from my region who had reactive arthritis after chlamydia for 1 month, and then 'cured' or 'in complete remission', I'm not sure know how to say it. Since ReA primary is not a chronic condition for many of the sufferers the ReA diagnosis may later pass into another but this time 'chronic' condition for some people..... of coures that's exactly what I wanted to say! Rheumatic diseases are very unpredictable but does not necessary
mean suffering for life! In addition to your resume about
ReA I could add some statistical data about
the distribution of the diagnoses between different types of autoimmune arthritis. We talk only about
autoimmune arhtritis now. I read official statistics for the different types arthritis frequencies among population. Of course osteoarthritis is on first place, but osteoarthritis is degenerative arthrits, not auto-immune and it's also known as "eldery arthritis", so we could hardly talk about
it in 16yrs old. Next place takes 20% of the diagnoses which are undeferentiated inflamatory arthritis,reactive arthritis or misdiagnosed arthritis, then confirmed
RA and JRA goes with about
10% of general arthritis diagnoses and then are followed by the seronegative chronics: ankylosing spondilitis, psoriatic arthritis, arthritis associated with IBD, and gout with about
3% for each.
All this stuff mean that having arthritis at 16 does not necessary mean arhtritis for life especially if the arthritis is mild. Rheumatic diseases are very unpredictable, but relax visit rheumy and keep an eyes for infection symptoms, fevers, other extra-arthritic symptoms...which may giude the docs for finding the cause,
in case if they can't find it shortly, which sometimes can take months and even years;(
Upss, almost 4am....... good night all
Official dx, but I have doubts: chronic reiter's syndrome (1yr and 6 mnths).