1 / 59

Radiographic scoring in rheumatoid arthritis - The basics

Radiographic scoring in rheumatoid arthritis - The basics. Tuulikki Sokka, MD, PhD tuulikki.sokka@ksshp.fi. Learning Objectives. History of different scoring methods Basics of the most often used methods Interpretation of radiographic scores in clinical trials Clinical use of radiographs

saber
Télécharger la présentation

Radiographic scoring in rheumatoid arthritis - The basics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Radiographic scoring in rheumatoid arthritis - The basics Tuulikki Sokka, MD, PhD tuulikki.sokka@ksshp.fi

  2. Learning Objectives • History of different scoring methods • Basics of the most often used methods • Interpretation of radiographic scores in clinical trials • Clinical use of radiographs • Radiographic outcomes in selected clinical cohorts

  3. History; the main methods • Steinbrocker 1949 • Kellgren 1956 • Sharp 1971 • Van der Heijde modification • Larsen 1973 • modifications

  4. Steinbrocker method • Stage I - IV • Relates to “anatomic stages” • radiographs of hands&wrists • The grade is determined by the worst change in any joint • Limitations: narrow scale; bias toward the most severely affected joint

  5. Kellgren method • 0-4, based on standard set of radiographs • “global” – one grade is given as a summation of abnormalities for all the joints in both hands and wrists • Limitations: narrow scale; weighted to reflect the most damaged joints

  6. Sharp method (1) • Purpose: to develop a quantitative assessment for radiographic changes in RA • Included: Hands&wrists

  7. Sharp method (2) • Reason to delete items: • Rare • Technical problems • Secondary changes • Initially, 10 features were analyzed: • Periosteal reaction • Cortical thinning • Osteoporosis • Sclerosis • Osteophyte formation • Defects • Cystic changes • Surface erosions • Joint space narrowing • Ankylosis

  8. Sharp method (2) • Initially, 10 features were analyzed: • Periosteal reaction • Cortical thinning • Osteoporosis • Sclerosis • Osteophyte formation • Defects • Cystic changes • Surface erosions • Joint space narrowing • Ankylosis Rare Technical problems Secondary changes INCLUDED: Erosion score Joint space narrowing

  9. Sharp method (3) • Erosion score; principles: • Score 0-5 for each joint • one point for each erosion in each joint and 5 for total destruction • 29 areas were analyzed in both hands+wrists – maximum possible score: 290

  10. Sharp method (4) • Joint space narrowing score; principles • 0 - normal • 1 - focal narrowing • 2 – reduction of <50% of joint space • 3 – reduction of >50% of joint space • 4 – ankylosis • 27 areas in hands and wrists – max score 216

  11. Sharp method (5) • How many joints? (1985) Factors to be considered: • Frequency of involvement • Technical factors • Minimum number of joints required in a patient population from mild to severe disease: • 17 for erosions • 18 for joint space narrowing ….. Still to decrease………………….

  12. Van der Heijde modification of the Sharp score PRINCIPLES • Feet included • Number of hand joints decreased • Scoring for erosions defined

  13. The Sharp/van der Heijde: Joints to be scored for erosions

  14. The Sharp/van der Heijde: Joints to be scored for joints space narrowing

  15. Sharp van der Heijde method (1)Erosions • Scoring of the hands: 16 areas included • Score 0-5 per joint • 1 – for discrete erosions • 2-3 for larger erosions depending of the surface area involved • 4 if erosion extends over middle of the bone • 5 for complete collapse

  16. Sharp van der Heijde method (2)Erosions • Scoring of the feet: 10 MTP and 2 IP joints of big toes • Score 0-5 per each side of the joint: total 0-10 • 1 – for discrete erosions • 2-3 for larger erosions depending of the surface area involved • 4 if erosion extends over middle of the bone • 5 for complete collapse

  17. Sharp van der Heijde method (3)JSN, hands, feet • Joint space narrowing score; 15 areas for hands, 6 for feet • 0 - normal • 1 - focal narrowing • 2 – reduction of <50% of joint space • 3 – reduction of >50% of joint space • 4 – ankylosis

  18. Sharp van der Heijde method (4) • Total scores: Erosion scores for hands 160 Erosion scores for feet 120 JSN for hands 120 JSN for feet 48 • Total 448

  19. Larsen score (1) • Background was a clinical observation: “A man with RA Steinbrocker 4 running to a bus” • Steinbrocker 4 is maximal damage • Max damage and running to a bus do not match • A better scoring method needed

  20. Larsen score (2) • Reference films for each joint • Score 0-5 for each joint • Scoring includes JSN and erosions • Articular osteoporosis and soft tissue swelling were initially included but omitted later

  21. Larsen score (3) • Which joints? • Scott 1995: 10 PIPs, 10 MCPs, 10 MTPs, wrists multiplied by 5 – total score 200 • Kaarela & Kautiainen 1997: 10 MCPs, II-V MTPs, wrists not multiplied – total score 100

  22. Larsen 0-100

  23. Larsen scoring

  24. Larsen vs. Sharp • Are significantly correlated Pincus et al. J Rheumatol 1997 • Larsen less time-consuming and easier • overall scoring for each joint • wrist analyzed as one joint • lower number of joints

  25. Smallest Detectable Difference SDD • SDD is the smallest change that can be reliably discriminated from the measurement error of the scoring method • SDD is based on defining measurement error and 95% limits of agreement • Sharp vd Heijde on scale 448; SDD = 5 • Larsen on scale 200; SDD = 5.8 Bruynesteyn et al. A&R 2002

  26. Minimal Clinically Important Difference MCID • MCID = progression with the highest combined sensitivity and specificity for detecting relevant progression • Sharp vd Heijde on scale 448; MCID = 4.6 • Larsen on scale 200; MCID = 2.3 • In both, roughly 1% of the maximum Bruynesteyn et al. A&R 2002

  27. Radiographic scores in RCTs -interpretations

  28. Radiographic progression in selected clinical trials Yazıcı Y, Yazıcı H, Arthritis Rheum 2006;54(supl)

  29. Low radiographic damage in current RCTs: Table 3. Change from baseline in disease characteristics in the ITT population after 2 years of treatment in the TEMPO trial MTX (n = 206) Etan (n = 202) Etan + MTX (n = 212) Year 2    Total Sharp score (0-448) Mean (95% CI) 3.34 (1.18, 5.50) 1.10 (0.13, 2.07) -0.56 (-1.05,-0.06)      Median (IQR) 0.00 (-0.11, 2.33) 0.00 (-0.66, 1.08) 0.00 (-1.41, 0.05) vdHeijde A&R2006

  30. Few patients have radiographic damage in current RCTs: Total Sharp vdHeijde score (0-448) in the TEMPO trial over 2 years vdHeijde A&R2006

  31. Short term Months - years Swollen joint count Tender joint count ESR, CRP Pain Functional capacity Global health by patient Global health by Dr (Radiographic damage; >1yr) = measures of disease activity Long term Years - decades Deformities Radiographic damage Joint replacements Functional capacity Comorbidity Work disability Costs Mortality = measures of outcomes Measures of RA over time: short term vs. long term Clinical cohorts, longitudinal observational studies, databases RCTs

  32. Radiographs – clinical use

  33. Two clusters of measures in RA x-rays HAQ joint deformity disease duration pain RF+ joint tenderness joint swelling ESR, CRP age HLA-DR4 patient global work disability mortality Pincus, Sokka. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2003

  34. The HAQ, CLINHAQ, or MDHAQ Patient Questionnaire – is Best Predictor in RA of… • Functional status (Pincus et al. Arthritis Rheum. 1984, Wolfe et al. J Rheumatol. 1991) • Work disability (Borg et al. J Rheumatol 1991, Callahan et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992, Wolfe and Hawley. J Rheumatol. 1998, Fex et al. J Rheumatol 1998, Sokka et al. J Rheumatol 1999, Barrett et al. Rheumatology 2000, ) • Costs (Lubeck et al. Arthritis Rheum. 1986) • Joint replacement surgery (Wolfe and Zwillich. Arthritis Rheum. 1998) • Death (Pincus et al. Arthritis Rheum. 1984, Ann Intern Med.1994, Wolfe et al. J Rheumatol 1988, Leigh&Fries J Rheumatol 1991, Wolfe et al. Arthritis Rheum. 1994, Callahan et al. Arthrits Care Res 1996, 1997, Soderlin et al. J Rheumatol 1998, Maiden et al. Ann Rheum Dis 1999, Sokka et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2004)

  35. Larsen & Thoen Scand J Rheumatol 1987 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Damage score 0-100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Disease duration, years

  36. Fuchs et al. J Rheumatol 1989 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Erosion score 0 - 4.33 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Disease duration, years

  37. Salaffi & Ferraccioli Scand J Rheumatol 1989 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Erosion score 0 - 150 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Disease duration, years

  38. The Jyväskylä Experience • The Central Finland RA register includes all patients with diagnosis of RA since 1980’s; prospective in all patients since 1996 • 2,900 patients; 2,300 alive • Covers a population of 265,000

  39. The North Pole

  40. Jyväskylä Central Hospital is the only rheumatology clinic in the Central Finland District and serves a population of 265,000 2 full-time rheumatologists and 1 trainee + 4 other rheumatologists

  41. The Central Finland RA Register • Patient demographics • History of onset of RA • Classification criteria • Extra-articular features • Comorbidities • Relevant surgeries • All previous and present DMARDs

  42. Patients with early arthritis • All new patients with RA are included; about 100 early RA patients each year • Baseline data includes patient self-report questionnaires, structured clinical status, laboratory tests, radiographs of hands and feet

  43. Patient Monitoring in early RA since 1997 • Regular out-patient visits in rheumatology unit for 2 years • A control visit at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years including patient self-reported outcomes, structured clinical status, update of RA register information, laboratory tests including RF and aCCP, and radiographs of hands and feet

  44. Patient Monitoring • Each visit, every patient is asked to complete an extended 2-page HAQ or self-report on a touch screen / GoTreatIT • Rheumatologist: a status form / GoTreatIT • An annual mailed questionnaire to all patients in the RA Register since 1998 • A 5-year follow-up of 2000 population controls in 2000-2005; 2007

  45. Radiographic outcomes in selected clinical cohorts

  46. Radiographic outcomes over 5 years in 3 Jyvaskyla Cohorts: Patients with early RA: • 1983-85 • 1988-89 • 1995-96

  47. 1988-89 1983-85 1995-96 Larsen scores of RF+ patients over 5 years Each line illustrates Larsen score of each patient Sokka et al. J Rheumatol 2004

  48. 1983-85 DMARDs over 5 years: Increasing use over time 1988-89 Sokka et al. J Rheumatol 2004 1995-96

  49. Radiographic outcomes of RF+ patients over 5 Years in 3 cohorts of patients with early RA. 1983-85 1988-89 1995-96 N 46 53 38 Patients with an erosive disease at 5 years, % 86% 67% 73% Patients with Larsen >=10,% Baseline 9% 0 3% 2 years 40% 20% 8% 5 years 55% 33% 14% Patients in the most recent cohort have potential for an erosive disease but the extent of damage remained low compared to earlier cohorts. Sokka et al. JRheumatol 2004

  50. Radiographic outcomes in two cohorts • The Heinola Cohort: 103 patients with early RA in the 1970’s • The Jyvaskyla Cohort: 85 patients with early RA in the 1980’s • All RF+ • 8-year follow-up

More Related