Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Do patients with axial spondyloarthritis with radiographic sacroiliitis fulfil both the modified New York criteria and the ASAS axial spondyloarthritis criteria? Results from eight cohorts
  1. Anne Boel1,
  2. Anna Molto2,
  3. Désirée van der Heijde1,
  4. Adrian Ciurea3,
  5. Maxime Dougados2,4,
  6. Lianne S Gensler5,
  7. Maria-José Santos6,
  8. Eugenio De Miguel7,
  9. Denis Poddubnyy8,9,
  10. Martin Rudwaleit10,
  11. Astrid van Tubergen11,12,
  12. Floris A van Gaalen1,
  13. Sofia Ramiro1,13
  1. 1 Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Paris Descartes University, Rheumatology, Cochin Hospital, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
  3. 3 Rheumatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
  4. 4 INSERM U1153: Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, PRES Sorbonne Paris-Cité, Paris, France
  5. 5 Axial Spondyloarthritis Clinic, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  6. 6 Rheumatology, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal
  7. 7 Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain
  8. 8 Department of Gastroenterology, Infectiology and Rheumatology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  9. 9 German Rheumatism Research Centre, Berlin, Germany
  10. 10 Internal Medicine and Rheumatology, Klinikum Bielefeld Rosenhöhe, Bielefeld, Germany
  11. 11 Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  12. 12 CAPHRI, Care and Public Health research institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  13. 13 Rheumatology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Anne Boel, Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden 2333 ZA, The Netherlands; a.h.e.m.boel{at}lumc.nl

Abstract

Background Patients with spondyloarthritis with radiographic sacroiliitis are traditionally classified according to the modified New York (mNY) criteria as ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and more recently according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria as radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA).

Objective To investigate the agreement between the mNY criteria for AS and the ASAS criteria for r-axSpA and reasons for disagreement.

Methods Patients with back pain ≥3 months diagnosed as axSpA with radiographic sacroiliitis (mNY radiographic criterion) were selected from eight cohorts (ASAS, Esperanza, GESPIC, OASIS, Reuma.pt, SCQM, SPACE, UCSF). Subsequently, we calculated the percentage of patients who fulfilled the ASAS r-axSpA criteria within the group of patients who fulfilled the mNY criteria and vice versa in six cohorts with complete information.

Results Of the 3882 patients fulfilling the mNY criteria, 93% also fulfilled the ASAS r-axSpA criteria. Inversely, of the 3434 patients fulfilling the ASAS r-axSpA criteria, 96% also fulfilled the mNY criteria. The main cause for discrepancy between the two criteria sets was the reported age at onset of back pain.

Conclusion Almost all patients with axSpA with radiographic sacroiliitis fulfil both ASAS and mNY criteria, which supports the interchangeable use of the terms AS and r-axSpA.

  • spondyloarthritis
  • ankylosing spondylitis
  • outcomes research
  • epidemiology
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Josef S Smolen

  • Contributors DvdH and SR helped in study concept and design. All authors contributed to acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. AB, SR and DvdH wrote the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the final manuscript to be published.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests AM reports grants and speaker/consultancy fees from AbbVie, Pfizer, BMS, UCB and Merck, outside the submitted work; DvdH reports speaker/consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and UCB outside the submitted work and is the Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv.; EDM reports grants and speaker/consultancy fees from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB outside the submitted work; DP reports grants and speaker/consultancy fees from AbbVie, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer and speaker/consultancy fees from BMS, Lilly, Roche, UCB and Celgene outside the submitted work; MR reports speaker/consultancy fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Eli-Lily, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB outside the submitted work; AvT reports grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB and Biogen and grants and speaker/consultancy fees from Novartis outside the submitted work; FAvG reports grants from MSD, Novartis, AbbVie, the Dutch Arthritis Society, Stichting Vrienden van Sole Mio, UCB and Pfizer outside the submitted work; SR reports speaker/consultancy fees from AbbVie, Eli-Lilly, Novartis and Sanofi and grants and speaker/consultancy fees from MSD outside the submitted work. AB, AC, MD, LG and MJS have nothing to disclose. GESPIC has been financially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung—BMBF), as part of the German competence network in rheumatology (Kompetenznetz Rheuma). As funding by BMBF was reduced according to schedule in 2005 and stopped in 2007, complementary financial support has been obtained also from Abbott/Abbvie, Amgen, Centocor, Schering-Plough and Wyeth. Since 2010 GESPIC is supported by Abbvie, additional support has been obtained also from ArthroMark (grants number FKZ 01EC1401A) and METARTHROS (grant number FKZ 01EC1407A) projects funded by BMBF.

  • Patient consent for publication Obtained in each of the original cohorts.

  • Ethics approval Obtained in each of the original cohorts.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.