Validation of SPARCC MRI-RETIC e-tools for increasing scoring proficiency of MRI sacroiliac joint lesions in axial spondyloarthritis

BACKGROUND: The Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) developers have created web-based calibration modules for the SPARCC MRI sacroiliac joint (SIJ) scoring methods. We aimed to test the impact of applying these e-modules on the feasibility and reliability of these methods. METHODS: The SPARCC-SIJ RETIC e-modules contain cases with baseline and follow-up scans and an online scoring interface. Visual real-time feedback regarding concordance/discordance of scoring with expert readers is provided by a colour-coding scheme. Reliability is assessed in real time by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), cases being scored until ICC targets are attained. Participating readers (n=17) from the EuroSpA Imaging project were randomised to one of two reader calibration strategies that each comprised three stages. Baseline and follow-up scans from 25 cases were scored after each stage was completed. Reliability was compared with a SPARCC developer, and the System Usability Scale (SUS) assessed feasibility. RESULTS: The reliability of readers for scoring bone marrow oedema was high after the first stage of calibration, and only minor improvement was noted following the use of the inflammation module. Greater enhancement of reader reliability was evident after the use of the structural module and was most consistently evident for the scoring of erosion (ICC status/change: stage 1 (0.42/0.20) to stage 3 (0.50/0.38)) and backfill (ICC status/change: stage 1 (0.51/0.19) to stage 3 (0.69/0.41)). The feasibility of both e-modules was evident by high SUS scores. CONCLUSION: The SPARCC-SIJ RETIC e-modules are feasible, effective knowledge transfer tools, and their use is recommended before using the SPARCC methods for clinical research and tria.

The OMERACT whole-body MRI scoring system for inflammation in peripheral joints and entheses (WIPE) in spondyloarthritis - reference image atlas for the knee region.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reference image atlas for the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology whole-body MRI scoring system for inflammation in peripheral joints and entheses (OMERACT MRI-WIPE) of the knee region. METHODS: Image examples of each pathology, location and grade, were collected and discussed at web-based, interactive meetings within the OMERACT MRI in Arthritis Working Group. Subsequently, reference images were selected by consensus. RESULTS: Reference images for each grade, pathology and location are depicted, along with definitions, reader rules and recommended MRI-sequences. CONCLUSION: The atlas guides scoring whole-body MRIs for inflammation in joints and entheses of the knee region according to MRI-WIPE methodology in clinical trials and cohorts.

Hip and pelvis region MRI reference image atlas for scoring inflammation in peripheral joints and entheses according to the OMERACT-MRI WIPE scoring system in patients with spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reference image atlas for scoring the hip/pelvis region according to the OMERACT whole-body MRI scoring system for inflammation in peripheral joints and entheses (MRI-WIPE). METHODS: We collected image examples of each pathology, location and grade, discussed them at web-based, interactive meetings and, finally, selected reference images by consensus. RESULTS: Reference images for each grade and location of osteitis, synovitis and soft tissue inflammation are provided, as are definitions, reader rules and recommended MRI-sequences. CONCLUSION: A reference image atlas was created to guide scoring whole-body MRIs for arthritis and enthesitis in the hip/pelvis region in spondyloarthritis/psoriatic arthritis clinical trials and cohorts.

Features of Axial Spondyloarthritis in Two Multicenter Cohorts of Patients with Psoriasis, Uveitis, and Colitis Presenting with Undiagnosed Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess: 1. The frequency of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) according to extra-articular presentation and HLA-B27 status; 2. Clinical and imaging features that distinguish axSpA from non-axSpA; 3. The impact of MRI on diagnosis and classification of axSpA. METHODS: The Screening in Axial Spondyloarthritis in Psoriasis, Iritis, Colitis, (SASPIC) study enrolled patients in two multicenter cohorts. Consecutive patients with undiagnosed chronic back pain attending dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology clinics with PsO, AAU, or IBD, were referred to a local rheumatologist with special expertise in axSpA for a structured diagnostic evaluation. The primary outcome was proportion of patients diagnosed with axSpA by final global evaluation. RESULTS: Frequency of axSpA was 46.7%, 61.6%, and 46.8% in SASPIC-1 cases (n=212) and 23.5%, 57.9%, and 23.3% in SASPIC-2 cases (n=151) with PsO, AAU, or IBD, respectively. Among B27 positives, axSpA was diagnosed in 70%, 74.5%, and 66.7% in SASPIC-1, and in 71.4%, 87.8%, and 55.6% in SASPIC-2 in patients with PsO, AAU, or IBD, respectively. All musculoskeletal clinical features were non-discriminatory. MRI was indicative of axSpA in 60-80% of patients and MRI in all patients (SASPIC-2) versus on-demand (SASPIC-1) led to 25% fewer diagnoses of axSpA in HLA B27 negatives with PsO or IBD. Performance of the ASAS classification criteria was greater with routine MRI (SASPIC-2) though sensitivity was lower than previously reported. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal management of patients presenting with PsO, AAU, IBD, and undiagnosed chronic back pain should include referral to a rheumatologist. Conducting MRI in all patients enhances diagnostic accuracy.

Adding ultrasound to treat-to-target shows no benefit in achieving clinical remission nor in slowing radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a multicenter prospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether using ultrasound (US) in addition to clinical information versus only clinical information in a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy leads to more clinical remission and to less radiographic progression in RA. METHODS: Patients with RA from the 2-year prospective BIODAM cohort were included. Clinical and US data (US7-score) were collected every 3 months and hands and feet radiographs every 6 months. At each visit, it was decided whether patients were treated according to the clinical definition of T2T with DAS44 remission as benchmark (T2T-DAS44). T2T-DAS44 was correctly applied if: (i) DAS44 remission had been achieved or (ii) if not, treatment was intensified. A T2T strategy also considering US data (T2T-DAS44-US) was correctly applied if: (i) both DAS44 and US remission (synovitis-score < 2, Doppler-score = 0) were present; or (ii) if not, treatment was intensified. The effect of T2T-DAS44-US on attaining clinical remission and on change in Sharp-van der Heijde score compared to T2T-DAS44 was analysed. RESULTS: A total of 1016 visits of 128 patients were included. T2T-DAS44 was correctly followed in 24% of visits and T2T-DAS44-US in 41%. DAS44 < 1.6 was achieved in 39% of visits. Compared to T2T-DAS44, using the T2T-DAS44-US strategy resulted in a 41% lower likelihood of DAS44 remission [OR (95% CI): 0.59 (0.40;0.87)] and had no effect on radiographic progression [ß(95% CI): 0.11 (- 0.16;0.39)] assessed at various intervals up to 12 months later. CONCLUSION: Our results do not suggest a benefit of using the US7-score in addition to clinical information as a T2T benchmark compared to clinical information alone. Key Points • Ultrasound has a valuable role in diagnostic evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis, but it is unclear whether adding ultrasound to the clinical assessment in a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy leads to more patients achieving remission and reduction in radiographic progression. • Our data from a real-world study demonstrated that adding information from ultrasound to the clinical assessment in a T2T strategy led to a lower rather than a higher likelihood of obtaining clinical remission as compared to using only clinical assessment. • Our data demonstrated that adding ultrasound data to a T2T strategy based only on clinical assessment did not offer additional protection against radiographic progression in patients with RA. • Adding US to a T2T strategy based on clinical assessment led to far more treatment intensifications (with consequences for costs and exposure to adverse events) without yielding a meaningful clinical benefit.