Sofia Ramiro1,2, Pascal Claudepierre3,4, Alexandre Sepriano1,5, Miranda van Lunteren1, Anna Molto6,7, Antoine Feydy8, Maria Antonietta d'Agostino9,10, Damien Loeuille11, Maxime Dougados6,7, Monique Reijnierse12, Désirée van der Heijde1. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 2. Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Rheumatology, Henri Mondor Hospital, APHP, Créteil, France. 4. Université Paris Est Créteil, EA 7379 - EpidermE, Créteil, France. 5. NOVA Medical School, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal. 6. Department of Rheumatology, Paris Descartes University, Hôpital Cochin, Hôpitaux de Paris, France. 7. INSERM (U1153), Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, PRES Sorbonne Paris-City, France. 8. Department of Radiology, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. 9. Department of Rheumatology, Ambroise Paré Hospital APHP, Boulogne-Billancourt, France. 10. INSERM U1173, Laboratoire d'Excellence INFLAMEX, UFR Simone Veil, Université Versailles-Saint Quentin en Yvelines, Saint-Quentin en Yvelines, France. 11. Department of Rheumatology, University of Nancy, Nancy, France. 12. Department of Radiology, Leiden Univeristy Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the performance of different spinal radiographic damage scoring methods in patients with early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods: Five-year spinal radiographs from the DESIR cohort were scored by three readers (averaged) for the calculation of the Stoke AS Spine Score (SASSS), modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS), Radiographic AS Spinal Score (RASSS), BASRI-spine and BASRI-total, and following the OMERACT filter, scores were compared according to truth, discrimination (reliability and sensitivity to change) and feasibility. The proportion of patients with a net change > smallest detectable change and >1 was calculated. The proportion of total variance explained by the patient (true variance) was calculated for the change scores as a measure of reliability, using analysis of variance. Results: In total 699 patients were included. Five-year net changes > smallest detectable change (>1) were: RASSS 17% (17%), mSASSS 12% (12%), BASRI-spine and BASRI-total 12% (9%), SASSS 11% (11%). The mSASSS and the RASSS performed the best in terms of capturing the signal (positive change) related to noise (negative change). The proportion of variance explained by the patient was highest for the mSASSS and RASSS (85% for both 5-year progression scores vs 50-55% for other methods). The proportion of patient variance in the thoracic segment of the RASSS was unsatisfactory (46% for progression). Conclusion: The existing scoring methods to assess spinal radiographic damage performed well in early phases of axSpA. The mSASSS and RASSS captured most change. There was no clear gain in additionally scoring the thoracic spine for the RASSS. The mSASSS remains the most sensitive and valid scoring method in axSpA, including early phases of the disease.
Objective: To compare the performance of different spinal radiographic damage scoring methods in patients with early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods: Five-year spinal radiographs from the DESIR cohort were scored by three readers (averaged) for the calculation of the Stoke AS Spine Score (SASSS), modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS), Radiographic AS Spinal Score (RASSS), BASRI-spine and BASRI-total, and following the OMERACT filter, scores were compared according to truth, discrimination (reliability and sensitivity to change) and feasibility. The proportion of patients with a net change > smallest detectable change and >1 was calculated. The proportion of total variance explained by the patient (true variance) was calculated for the change scores as a measure of reliability, using analysis of variance. Results: In total 699 patients were included. Five-year net changes > smallest detectable change (>1) were: RASSS 17% (17%), mSASSS 12% (12%), BASRI-spine and BASRI-total 12% (9%), SASSS 11% (11%). The mSASSS and the RASSS performed the best in terms of capturing the signal (positive change) related to noise (negative change). The proportion of variance explained by the patient was highest for the mSASSS and RASSS (85% for both 5-year progression scores vs 50-55% for other methods). The proportion of patient variance in the thoracic segment of the RASSS was unsatisfactory (46% for progression). Conclusion: The existing scoring methods to assess spinal radiographic damage performed well in early phases of axSpA. The mSASSS and RASSS captured most change. There was no clear gain in additionally scoring the thoracic spine for the RASSS. The mSASSS remains the most sensitive and valid scoring method in axSpA, including early phases of the disease.
Authors: Paras Karmacharya; Ali Duarte-Garcia; Maureen Dubreuil; M Hassan Murad; Ravi Shahukhal; Pragya Shrestha; Elena Myasoedova; Cynthia S Crowson; Kerry Wright; John M Davis Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Alexandre Sepriano; Sofia Ramiro; Désirée van der Heijde; Maxime Dougados; Pascal Claudepierre; Antoine Feydy; Monique Reijnierse; Damien Loeuille; Robert Landewé Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 5.178
Authors: Sofia Ramiro; Désirée van der Heijde; Alexandre Sepriano; Miranda van Lunteren; Anna Moltó; Antoine Feydy; Maria Antonietta d'Agostino; Damien Loeuille; Maxime Dougados; Monique Reijnierse; Pascal Claudepierre Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Alexandre Sepriano; Sofia Ramiro; Robert Landewé; Anna Moltó; Pascal Claudepierre; Daniel Wendling; Maxime Dougados; Désirée van der Heijde Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 5.178