-
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Feb 2024The Berlin algorithm was developed to help diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but new studies suggest some features typical of SpA are less specific than...
OBJECTIVE
The Berlin algorithm was developed to help diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but new studies suggest some features typical of SpA are less specific than previously assumed. Furthermore, evidence is lacking for other SpA subtypes (e.g. peripheral SpA). We aimed to review the evidence on the performance of SpA features for diagnosing each SpA subtype.
METHODS
Systematic literature review of studies reporting the diagnostic performance of ≥ 1 SpA feature in patients with suspected SpA. The external reference was the rheumatologist's diagnosis of SpA. Meta-analysis was performed, separately for each SpA subtype, to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios. Meta-regression assessed the effect of covariates (e.g. feature's prevalence) on each feature's performance.
RESULTS
Of 13 844 articles screened, 46 were included. Sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging, damage on pelvic radiographs and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) had the best balance between LR+ and LR- (LR + 3.9-17.0, LR- 0.5-0.7) for diagnosing axSpA. HLA-B27 had an LR+ lower than anticipated (LR + =3.1). Inflammatory back pain (IBP) had low LR + (LR+∼1), but substantially decreased the likelihood of axSpA when absent (LR-=0.3). Conversely, peripheral features and extra-musculoskeletal manifestations showed high LR + (LR+ 1.6-5.0), but were as common in axSpA as no-axSpA (LR-∼1). The specificity of most features was reduced in settings when these were highly prevalent. Limited data precluded a detailed analysis on diagnosing other SpA subtypes.
CONCLUSION
Imaging features and CRP have good diagnostic value for axSpA. However, the specificity of other features, especially HLA-B27 and IBP, is lower than previously known.
PubMed: 38305346
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keae065 -
Medicine Jan 2024This systematic literature review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic literature review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) of the sacroiliac joint. Bone marrow edema (BME) of the sacroiliac joint is an early manifestation of some diseases, such as ankylosing spondylitis, and is usually examined by nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); however, MRI can be intolerable for some patients; hence, numerous studies have analyzed DECT examinations.
METHODS
We searched PUBMED, CNKI, and EMBASE in 2023 for articles containing the following terms (DECT) or (DE-CT) or (dual-energy CT) or "dual-energy CT" or (dual-energy computed tomography) and ((sacroiliac joint) or (ankylosing spondylitis) or (sacroiliac arthritis) or (sacroiliitis)). An initial search identified 444 articles, of which 7 met the criteria. Data were extracted to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds for analysis using R software.
RESULTS
Out of 291 patients and 577 sacroiliac joints, 429 (74.35%) exhibited BME. All studies used magnetic resonance as the control group. The overall sensitivity and specificity of DECT were 79%, and 92%, respectively, with positive prediction rate of 92.55% and negative prediction rate of 83.73%.
CONCLUSION
DECT appears to be a promising diagnostic tool for detecting BME in the sacroiliac joint and can be used as an alternative examination method for patients in whom MRI is contraindicated.
Topics: Humans; Sacroiliac Joint; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Bone Marrow; Edema; Tomography
PubMed: 38181261
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036708 -
RMD Open Nov 2023Summarise the evidence of the performance of the machine learning algorithm in discriminating sacroiliitis features on MRI and compare it with the accuracy of human...
OBJECTIVES
Summarise the evidence of the performance of the machine learning algorithm in discriminating sacroiliitis features on MRI and compare it with the accuracy of human physicians.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CIHNAL, Web of Science, IEEE, American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology abstract archives were searched for studies published between 2008 and 4 June 2023. Two authors independently screened and extracted the variables, and the results are presented using tables and forest plots.
RESULTS
Ten studies were selected from 2381. Over half of the studies used deep learning models, using Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society sacroiliitis criteria as the ground truth, and manually extracted the regions of interest. All studies reported the area under the curve as a performance index, ranging from 0.76 to 0.99. Sensitivity and specificity were the second-most commonly reported indices, with sensitivity ranging from 0.56 to 1.00 and specificity ranging from 0.67 to 1.00; these results are comparable to a radiologist's sensitivity of 0.67-1.00 and specificity of 0.78-1.00 in the same cohort. More than half of the studies showed a high risk of bias in the analysis domain of quality appraisal owing to the small sample size or overfitting issues.
CONCLUSION
The performance of machine learning algorithms in discriminating sacroiliitis features on MRI varied owing to the high heterogeneity between studies and the small sample sizes, overfitting, and under-reporting issues of individual studies. Further well-designed and transparent studies are required.
Topics: Humans; Sacroiliitis; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Spondylarthritis; Sensitivity and Specificity; Machine Learning
PubMed: 37996126
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003783 -
Pain Physician Sep 2023The sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain, ranging from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without...
BACKGROUND
The sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain, ranging from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis. Despite the difficulty of diagnosis, multiple therapeutic modalities including surgical and nonsurgical interventions have been utilized. Among the interventional modalities, intraarticular injections are commonly utilized.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of intraarticular injections in the sacroiliac joint.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of the therapeutic effectiveness of intraarticular injections of the sacroiliac joint utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews And Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.
METHODS
The available literature on therapeutic sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane review criteria to assess risk of bias, the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized therapeutic trials, and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for nonrandomized studies. The level of evidence was based on best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V. Data collection was performed including literature published from 1966 through December 2022, as well as manual searches of the bibliographies of known articles.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcome measures include pain relief and improvement in functional status at 3 months for a single intervention. Only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance, with at least 3 months of follow-up were included. Duration of relief was categorized as short-term (< 6 months) and long-term (> 6 months).
RESULTS
Based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses with a single-arm meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, and the inclusion of 11 RCTs (5 positive, 6 negative) and 3 observational studies (2 positive, one negative), the evidence was Level III or fair in managing low back pain of sacroiliac joint origin with sacroiliac joint injections.
LIMITATIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis are limited by lack of eligible studies, inconsistencies among the available studies, variations in techniques, variable diagnostic standards for inclusion criteria, and finally, the inability to correlate the results and perform an optimal systematic review and meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
The present systematic review and meta-analysis show an inability to perform conventional dual-arm analysis, whereas a single-arm meta-analysis demonstrated a difference of approximately 3 points on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and 8 points on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). However, there were no studies that considered >= 50% relief as the criterion standard. Overall, the qualitative and quantitative evidence combined shows Level III or fair evidence for therapeutic sacroiliac joint injections for managing low back pain of sacroiliac joint origin.
KEY WORDS
Chronic low back pain, sacroiliac joint pain, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, sacroiliitis, sacroiliac joint injection, sacroiliac joint nerve blocks, radiofrequency ablation, conventional radiofrequency, pulsed radiofrequency.
PubMed: 37774179
DOI: No ID Found -
Musculoskeletal Surgery Jun 2024The aim of the present study is to systematically review the current literature about diagnosis and treatment of acute inflammatory sacroiliitis in pregnant or... (Review)
Review
The aim of the present study is to systematically review the current literature about diagnosis and treatment of acute inflammatory sacroiliitis in pregnant or post-partum women. A systematic search was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data about clinical presentation, diagnosis methods and treatment strategies were retrieved from included studies and reported in a table. After screening, five studies on 34 women were included; they were all affected by acute inflammatory sacroiliitis. Clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging were used to confirm diagnosis. In four studies, patients were treated with ultrasound-guided sacroiliac injections of steroids and local anesthetics, while one study used only manual mobilization. Clinical scores improved in all patients. Ultrasound-guided injections proved to be a safe and effective strategy for inflammatory sacroiliitis treatment during pregnancy or post-partum.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Sacroiliitis; Pregnancy Complications; Postpartum Period; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Acute Disease; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Puerperal Disorders; Anesthetics, Local; Adult
PubMed: 37338751
DOI: 10.1007/s12306-023-00786-x -
The Journal of Rheumatology Feb 2023Axial involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common subset of this condition, but a unanimous definition has yet to be established. It has been...
OBJECTIVE
Axial involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common subset of this condition, but a unanimous definition has yet to be established. It has been defined by using different criteria, ranging from the presence of at least unilateral grade 2 sacroiliitis to those used for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or simply the presence of inflammatory low back pain (IBP). Our aim was to identify and evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic interventions for treatment of axial disease in PsA.
METHODS
This systematic review is an update of the axial PsA (axPsA) domain of the treatment recommendations project by the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).
RESULTS
The systematic review of the literature showed that new biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug classes, namely interleukin (IL)-17A and Janus kinase inhibitors, could be considered for the treatment of axPsA. This would be in addition to previously recommended treatments such as nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, physiotherapy, simple analgesia, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Conflicting evidence still remains regarding the use of IL-12/23 and IL-23 inhibitors.
CONCLUSION
Further studies are needed for a better understanding of the treatment of axPsA, as well as validated outcome measures.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Psoriasis; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Interleukin-23; Low Back Pain
PubMed: 36318999
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.220309 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Aug 2022To identify all possible definitions of "early SpA" employed in the literature, including "early axial SpA (axSpA)" and "early peripheral SpA (pSpA)".
AIM
To identify all possible definitions of "early SpA" employed in the literature, including "early axial SpA (axSpA)" and "early peripheral SpA (pSpA)".
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted in Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for studies that included any mention of "early SpA" or its subtypes. The proportion of studies including a definition was calculated, and the different definitions were assessed.
RESULTS
Out of 9651 titles identified, 336 publications reporting data from 183 studies were included. Over time, an increasing number of publications were identified. In total, 114 (62%) studies reported a specific definition: 33% of them based it on symptom duration, 31% on radiographic damage, 28% on disease duration, 5% on both symptom/disease duration and radiographic damage, and 3% on other aspects. Overall, 61 (33%) studies included the term "early axSpA", whereas 60 (33%) included "early ankylosing spondylitis (AS)". Regarding the studies that referred to "early axSpA", the most used definition was symptom/disease duration <5 years, whereas for "early AS" was symptom/disease duration <10 years. After 2010, the definition of "early axSpA" based on the absence of radiographic sacroiliitis was less used compared to before 2010 (17% vs 38%).
CONCLUSION
Over time, the term "early SpA" and its subtypes is increasingly used. More than one third of the studies did not include a definition of the term and the studies reporting one showed a large heterogeneity. These results emphasize the need for a standardised definition of early SpA.
Topics: Humans; Referral and Consultation; Sacroiliitis; Spondylarthritis; Spondylitis, Ankylosing
PubMed: 35667332
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152032 -
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) Apr 2022To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ)...
2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Oligoarthritis, Temporomandibular Joint Arthritis, and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.
OBJECTIVE
To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome. Recommendations regarding tapering and discontinuing treatment in inactive systemic JIA are also provided.
METHODS
We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
RESULTS
Similar to those published in 2019, these JIA recommendations are based on clinical phenotypes of JIA, rather than a specific classification schema. This guideline provides recommendations for initial and subsequent treatment of JIA with oligoarthritis, TMJ arthritis, and systemic JIA as well as for tapering and discontinuing treatment in subjects with inactive systemic JIA. Other aspects of disease management, including factors that influence treatment choice and medication tapering, are discussed. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional.
CONCLUSION
This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.
Topics: Arthritis, Juvenile; Humans; Quality of Life; Rheumatology; Temporomandibular Joint; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; United States; Uveitis
PubMed: 35233993
DOI: 10.1002/art.42037 -
Arthritis Care & Research Apr 2022To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations,...
2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Recommendations for Nonpharmacologic Therapies, Medication Monitoring, Immunizations, and Imaging.
OBJECTIVE
To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging, irrespective of JIA phenotype.
METHODS
We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
RESULTS
Recommendations in this guideline include the use of physical therapy and occupational therapy interventions; a healthy, well-balanced, age-appropriate diet; specific laboratory monitoring for medications; widespread use of immunizations; and shared decision-making with patients/caregivers. Disease management for all patients with JIA is addressed with respect to nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional.
CONCLUSION
This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis, and a concurrent 2021 guideline on oligoarthritis, temporomandibular arthritis, and systemic JIA. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunization; Quality of Life; Rheumatology; United States; Uveitis
PubMed: 35233989
DOI: 10.1002/acr.24839 -
Arthritis Care & Research Apr 2022To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ)...
2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Oligoarthritis, Temporomandibular Joint Arthritis, and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.
OBJECTIVE
To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome. Recommendations regarding tapering and discontinuing treatment in inactive systemic JIA are also provided.
METHODS
We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
RESULTS
Similar to those published in 2019, these JIA recommendations are based on clinical phenotypes of JIA, rather than a specific classification schema. This guideline provides recommendations for initial and subsequent treatment of JIA with oligoarthritis, TMJ arthritis, and systemic JIA as well as for tapering and discontinuing treatment in subjects with inactive systemic JIA. Other aspects of disease management, including factors that influence treatment choice and medication tapering, are discussed. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional.
CONCLUSION
This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Quality of Life; Rheumatology; Temporomandibular Joint; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; United States; Uveitis
PubMed: 35233986
DOI: 10.1002/acr.24853