Sara K Tedeschi1. 1. Division of Rheumatology, Immunology and Allergy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 60 Fenwood Road, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. stedeschi1@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper covers confusion and challenges in the nomenclature of calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease. Clinicians, investigators, and patients are faced with a variety of terms that are used to describe CPPD and its phenotypes, and clarity is greatly needed to help advance research and patient care. Motivation for the upcoming development of CPPD classification criteria is reviewed. RECENT FINDINGS: EULAR proposed recommended terminology for CPPD in 2011. International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 and ICD-10) billing codes identify definite or probable CPPD with variable accuracy depending on the clinical setting and comparator group. READ diagnostic codes have been employed to identify pseudogout in UK datasets but their accuracy has not been evaluated. CPPD classification criteria will provide a system for identifying a relatively homogenous group of patients to be included in clinical studies, enabling comparison of outcomes across studies. CPPD nomenclature remains challenging for clinicians, investigators, and patients. A lay-friendly definition of CPPD, using easily accessible terminology, would be welcome. CPPD classification criteria are a necessary step in moving forward CPPD clinical research and may involve a range of clinical, laboratory, and imaging modalities.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper covers confusion and challenges in the nomenclature of calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease. Clinicians, investigators, and patients are faced with a variety of terms that are used to describe CPPD and its phenotypes, and clarity is greatly needed to help advance research and patient care. Motivation for the upcoming development of CPPD classification criteria is reviewed. RECENT FINDINGS: EULAR proposed recommended terminology for CPPD in 2011. International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 and ICD-10) billing codes identify definite or probable CPPD with variable accuracy depending on the clinical setting and comparator group. READ diagnostic codes have been employed to identify pseudogout in UK datasets but their accuracy has not been evaluated. CPPD classification criteria will provide a system for identifying a relatively homogenous group of patients to be included in clinical studies, enabling comparison of outcomes across studies. CPPD nomenclature remains challenging for clinicians, investigators, and patients. A lay-friendly definition of CPPD, using easily accessible terminology, would be welcome. CPPD classification criteria are a necessary step in moving forward CPPD clinical research and may involve a range of clinical, laboratory, and imaging modalities.
Authors: Daniel Aletaha; Tuhina Neogi; Alan J Silman; Julia Funovits; David T Felson; Clifton O Bingham; Neal S Birnbaum; Gerd R Burmester; Vivian P Bykerk; Marc D Cohen; Bernard Combe; Karen H Costenbader; Maxime Dougados; Paul Emery; Gianfranco Ferraccioli; Johanna M W Hazes; Kathryn Hobbs; Tom W J Huizinga; Arthur Kavanaugh; Jonathan Kay; Tore K Kvien; Timothy Laing; Philip Mease; Henri A Ménard; Larry W Moreland; Raymond L Naden; Theodore Pincus; Josef S Smolen; Ewa Stanislawska-Biernat; Deborah Symmons; Paul P Tak; Katherine S Upchurch; Jirí Vencovský; Frederick Wolfe; Gillian Hawker Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2010-09
Authors: Victoria G Barskova; Fatima M Kudaeva; Liliya A Bozhieva; Alexander V Smirnov; Alexander V Volkov; Evgenii L Nasonov Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Kimberly J O'Malley; Karon F Cook; Matt D Price; Kimberly Raiford Wildes; John F Hurdle; Carol M Ashton Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: W Zhang; M Doherty; T Bardin; V Barskova; P-A Guerne; T L Jansen; B F Leeb; F Perez-Ruiz; J Pimentao; L Punzi; P Richette; F Sivera; T Uhlig; I Watt; E Pascual Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2011-01-07 Impact factor: 19.103