The 2023 ACR/EULAR Classification Criteria for Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition Disease

ObjectiveCalcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease is prevalent and has diverse presentations, but there are no validated classification criteria for this symptomatic arthritis. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR have developed the first-ever validated classification criteria for symptomatic CPPD disease.MethodsSupported by the ACR and EULAR, a multinational group of investigators followed established methodology to develop these disease classification criteria. The group generated lists of candidate items and refined their definitions, collected de-identified patient profiles, evaluated strengths of associations between candidate items and CPPD disease, developed a classification criteria framework, and used multi-criterion decision analysis to define criteria weights and a classification threshold score. The criteria were validated in an independent cohort.ResultsAmong patients with joint pain, swelling, or tenderness (entry criterion) whose symptoms are not fully explained by an alternative disease (exclusion criterion), the presence of crowned dens syndrome or calcium pyrophosphate crystals in synovial fluid are sufficient to classify a patient as having CPPD disease. In the absence of these findings, a score >56 points using weighted criteria, comprising clinical features, associated metabolic disorders, and results of laboratory and imaging investigations, can be used to classify as CPPD disease. These criteria had a sensitivity of 92.2% and specificity of 87.9% in the derivation cohort (190 CPPD cases, 148 mimickers), whereas sensitivity was 99.2% and specificity was 92.5% in the validation cohort (251 CPPD cases, 162 mimickers).ConclusionThe 2023 ACR/EULAR CPPD disease classification criteria have excellent performance characteristics and will facilitate research in this field

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as biomarkers in axial spondyloarthritis: Observational studies from the program to understand the longterm outcomes in spondyloarthritis registry

Objectives:This study was conducted to assess the utility of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in predicting radiographic sacroiliitis and active disease in axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) and to explore the association between use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and these laboratory values compared with traditional inflammatory markers. Methods:Observational data from the Program to Understand the Longterm Outcomes in Spondyloarthritis (PULSAR) registry were analyzed. We generated receiver operating characteristic curves to calculate laboratory cutoff values; we used these values in multivariable logistic regression models to identify associations with radiographically confirmed sacroiliitis and active disease. We also used logistic regression to determine the likelihood of elevated laboratory values after initiation of TNFi. Results:Most study participants (n = 354) were White, male, and HLA-B27 positive. NLR (odds ratio [OR] 1.459, P = 0.034), PLR (OR 4.842, P \u3c 0.001), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (OR 4.397, P \u3c 0.001), and C-reactive protein (CRP) level (OR 2.911, P = 0.001) were independent predictors of radiographic sacroiliitis. Models that included PLR with traditional biomarkers performed better than those with traditional biomarkers alone. NLR (OR 6.931, P = 0.002) and CRP (OR 2.678, P = 0.004) were predictors of active disease, but the model that included both NLR and CRP performed better than CRP alone. TNFi use reduced the odds of elevated NLR (OR 0.172, P \u3c 0.001), PLR (OR 0.073, P \u3c 0.001), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (OR 0.319, P \u3c 0.001), and CRP (OR 0.407, P \u3c 0.001), but models that included NLR or PLR and traditional biomarkers performed best. Conclusions:These findings demonstrate an association between NLR and PLR and sacroiliitis and disease activity, with NLR and PLR showing response after TNFi treatment and adding useful clinical information to established biomarkers, thus perhaps assisting in management of axial SpA

2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis

ObjectiveTo update evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).MethodsWe conducted updated systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat-to-target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel.ResultsRecommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co-administration of low-dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat-to-target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended.ConclusionThese recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA

2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis

ObjectiveTo update evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).MethodsWe conducted updated systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat-to-target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel.ResultsRecommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co-administration of low-dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat-to-target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended.ConclusionThese recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA

2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis

ObjectiveTo update evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).MethodsWe conducted updated systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat-to-target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel.ResultsRecommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co-administration of low-dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat-to-target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended.ConclusionThese recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA