Rosaline van den Berg1, Manouk de Hooge2, Pauline A C Bakker2, Floris van Gaalen2, Victoria Navarro-Compán2, Karen Minde Fagerli2, Robert Landewé2, Maikel van Oosterhout2, Roberta Ramonda2, Monique Reijnierse2, Désirée van der Heijde2. 1. From the Department of Rheumatology, and the Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain; Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Amsterdam Rheumatology Center, Amsterdam; Department of Rheumatology, Groene Hart Ziekenhuis (GHZ) hospital, Gouda, the Netherlands; Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, DIMED University of Padua, Padua, Italy.R. van den Berg, PhD; M. de Hooge, MSc; P.A. Bakker, MD; F. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center; V. Navarro-Compán, MD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, and Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital La Paz; K.M. Fagerli, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital; R. Landewé, MD, PhD, Amsterdam Rheumatology Center; M. van Oosterhout, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, GHZ hospital; R. Ramonda, MD, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, DIMED University of Padua; M. Reijnierse, MD, PhD, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center; D. van der Heijde, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center. r.van_den_berg@lumc.nl. 2. From the Department of Rheumatology, and the Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain; Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Amsterdam Rheumatology Center, Amsterdam; Department of Rheumatology, Groene Hart Ziekenhuis (GHZ) hospital, Gouda, the Netherlands; Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, DIMED University of Padua, Padua, Italy.R. van den Berg, PhD; M. de Hooge, MSc; P.A. Bakker, MD; F. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center; V. Navarro-Compán, MD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, and Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital La Paz; K.M. Fagerli, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital; R. Landewé, MD, PhD, Amsterdam Rheumatology Center; M. van Oosterhout, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, GHZ hospital; R. Ramonda, MD, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, DIMED University of Padua; M. Reijnierse, MD, PhD, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center; D. van der Heijde, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate metric properties of the SpondyloArthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) score of the sacroiliac (SI) joints. METHODS: Patients with back pain (≥ 3 months, ≤ 2 years, onset < 45 years) were included in the SPACE cohort (SpondyloArthritis Caught Early). Patients with (possible) axial spondyloarthritis had followup visits after 3 and 12 months and were treated according to clinical practice. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the SI joints (MRI-SI) was scored in 2 independent campaigns (campaign 1: at baseline and 3 months; campaign 2: at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months) by 2 different blinded reader pairs, applying the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) definition (MRI-SI+ vs MRI-SI-; discordant cases were adjudicated by a third reader) and SPARCC score (mean of 2 agreeing readers). Calculations were made for agreement between SPARCC score cutoff values and a consensus judgment of MRI-SI+ (ASAS definition) as external standard, change in SPARCC score, and smallest detectable changes (SDC) over 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: SPARCC score ≥ 2 showed best agreement with MRI-SI+ in both campaigns. Regarding observed changes in relation to SDC, SPARCC score changed in 70/151 patients; 26/70 patients changed > SDC (3.4), of whom 20 patients received stable treatment over 3 months in campaign 1. Over 3 months, 20/68 patients showed changes in SPARCC score; 11/20 > SDC (2.1), of whom 8 patients received stable treatment. Over 1 year, 23/74 patients changed their SPARCC score; 14/23 changed > SDC (2.4), of whom 7 received stable treatment in campaign 2. CONCLUSION: SPARCC score ≥ 2 can be used as surrogate for a consensus judgment of MRI-SI+ (ASAS definition) in clinical trials. The SDC ranged from 2.1-3.4 dependent on reader pair and were close to the proposed minimum important change of 2.5.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate metric properties of the SpondyloArthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) score of the sacroiliac (SI) joints. METHODS:Patients with back pain (≥ 3 months, ≤ 2 years, onset < 45 years) were included in the SPACE cohort (SpondyloArthritis Caught Early). Patients with (possible) axial spondyloarthritis had followup visits after 3 and 12 months and were treated according to clinical practice. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the SI joints (MRI-SI) was scored in 2 independent campaigns (campaign 1: at baseline and 3 months; campaign 2: at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months) by 2 different blinded reader pairs, applying the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) definition (MRI-SI+ vs MRI-SI-; discordant cases were adjudicated by a third reader) and SPARCC score (mean of 2 agreeing readers). Calculations were made for agreement between SPARCC score cutoff values and a consensus judgment of MRI-SI+ (ASAS definition) as external standard, change in SPARCC score, and smallest detectable changes (SDC) over 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: SPARCC score ≥ 2 showed best agreement with MRI-SI+ in both campaigns. Regarding observed changes in relation to SDC, SPARCC score changed in 70/151 patients; 26/70 patients changed > SDC (3.4), of whom 20 patients received stable treatment over 3 months in campaign 1. Over 3 months, 20/68 patients showed changes in SPARCC score; 11/20 > SDC (2.1), of whom 8 patients received stable treatment. Over 1 year, 23/74 patients changed their SPARCC score; 14/23 changed > SDC (2.4), of whom 7 received stable treatment in campaign 2. CONCLUSION: SPARCC score ≥ 2 can be used as surrogate for a consensus judgment of MRI-SI+ (ASAS definition) in clinical trials. The SDC ranged from 2.1-3.4 dependent on reader pair and were close to the proposed minimum important change of 2.5.
Entities:
Keywords:
INFLAMMATION; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; SACROILIAC JOINTS; SPONDYLOARTHRITIS
Authors: Jürgen Braun; Xenofon Baraliakos; Kay-Geert Hermann; Robert Landewé; Pedro M Machado; Walter P Maksymowych; Owen Davies; Bengt Hoepken; Tommi Nurminen; Christian Stach; Désirée van der Heijde Journal: RMD Open Date: 2017-04-24
Authors: Walter P Maksymowych; Stephanie Wichuk; Maxime Dougados; Heather Jones; Annette Szumski; Jack F Bukowski; Lisa Marshall; Robert G Lambert Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Mariagrazia Lorenzin; Augusta Ortolan; Mara Felicetti; Stefania Vio; Marta Favero; Pamela Polito; Carmelo Lacognata; Vanna Scapin; Andrea Doria; Roberta Ramonda Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Walter P Maksymowych; Stephanie Wichuk; Maxime Dougados; Heather E Jones; Ron Pedersen; Annette Szumski; Lisa Marshall; Jack F Bukowski; Robert G Lambert Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Maxime Dougados; Walter P Maksymowych; Robert B M Landewé; Anna Moltó; Pascal Claudepierre; Manouk de Hooge; Robert G Lambert; Randi Bonin; Jack F Bukowski; Heather E Jones; Isabelle Logeart; Ron Pedersen; Annette Szumski; Bonnie Vlahos; Désirée van der Heijde Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Walter P Maksymowych; Désirée van der Heijde; Xenofon Baraliakos; Atul Deodhar; Sarah P Sherlock; David Li; Dona Fleishaker; Thijs Hendrikx; Keith S Kanik Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 7.580