FRI0317 CONSENSUS DEFINITIONS FOR MRI LESIONS IN THE SPINE OF PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: FIRST ANALYSIS FROM THE ASSESSMENTS IN SPONDYLOARTHRITIS INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY CLASSIFICATION COHORT

Abstract

Background:A recent consensus from the ASAS MRI group has culminated in updated spine lesion definitions for axial spondyloarthritis (ASAS_MRI_defn)1. There has been no central reader evaluation of MRI scans from the ASAS Classification Cohort (ASAS-CC)2to determine the spectrum of MRI lesions in the spine in this cohort.Objectives:To determine the spectrum of active and structural lesions on MRI images of the spine from the ASAS-CC according to the consensus ASAS_MRI_defnupdate.Methods:ASAS_MRI_defnwere recorded by 9 central readers in an eCRF for global assessment and detailed scoring of each discovertebral unit and postero-lateral structures. Vertebral corner bone marrow edema (VCBME) and corner fat (VCFAT) lesions were recorded if present on 2 slices; facet joint, lateral, and posterior inflammatory lesions were recorded if present on a single slice. Vertebral corner erosion, bone spurs, and ankylosis were each scored on a single slice. Comparison of active and structural lesion frequencies by local rheumatologist diagnosis of axSpA was assessed descriptively according to ≥2 and majority reader (≥5/9) concordant data.Results:MRI scans of the spine were available from 69 cases with axSpA diagnosed in 44/64 (68.8%). VCBME was most frequent with ≥1 lesion in 32(46.4%) and 19 (27.5%) by ≥2 and ≥5/9 readers, respectively. VCFAT was the most frequent structural lesion with ≥1 lesion in 24 (34.8%) and 14 (20.3%) by ≥2 and ≥5/9 readers, respectively. There were significantly more VCBME lesions in axSpA patients than non-axSpA (mean(SD):1.8(2.7) vs 0.3 (0.5)) (p<0.001) while differences in VCFAT were not significant (Table). The presence of ≥2 VCBME had 90-95% specificity for axSpA. Significantly more VCBME and VCFAT were observed in the setting of radiographic sacroiliitis (modified New York criteria (mNY)).Conclusion:Spine lesions on MRI are relatively frequent in patients with undiagnosed back pain presenting to the rheumatologist. The presence of ≥2 VCBME, but not VCFAT, may have some diagnostic utility.References:[1]Maksymowych WP, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 70 (suppl 10): 654, 2018[2]Rudwaleit et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68: 777-83Vertebral Corner MRI lesionsmajority of readers (>=5)≥2 readersaxSpA=Yes (n=44)axSpA=No (n=20)p-valueaxSpA=Yes (n=44)axSpA=No (n=20)p-valueCorner Fat ≥112 (27.3%)2 (10%)0.1917 (38.6%)7 (35%)0.78Corner Fat ≥210 (22.7%)2 (10%)0.3113 (29.5%)4 (20%)0.64Corner Fat ≥38 (18.2%)1 (5%)0.2510 (22.7%)3 (15%)0.74Corner Fat ≥47 (15.9%)1 (5%)0.429 (20.5%)2 (10%)0.48Corner BME ≥117 (38.6%)1 (5%)0.00625 (54.5%)6 (30%)0.047Corner BME ≥215 (34.1%)1 (5%)0.01319 (43.2%)2 (10%)0.009Corner BME ≥311 (25%)0 (0%)0.01316 (36.4%)1 (5%)0.008Corner BME ≥48 (18.2%)0 (0%)0.09412 (27.3%)1 (5%)0.048mNY=Yes (n=10)mNY=No (n=49)p-valuemNY=Yes (n=10)mNY=No (n=49)p-valueCorner Fat ≥15 (50%)9 (18.4%)0.0475 (50%)17 (34.7%)0.48Corner Fat ≥25 (50%)7 (14.3%)0.0225 (50%)11 (22.4%)0.12Corner Fat ≥34 (40%)5 (10.2%)0.0364 (40%)9 (18.4%)0.20Corner Fat ≥44 (40%)4 (8.2%)0.0224 (40%)7 (14.3%)0.079Corner BME ≥15 (50%)11 (22.4%)0.1167 (70%)22 (44.9%)0.18Corner BME ≥25 (50%)9 (18.4%)0.0475 (50%)14 (28.6%)0.27Corner BME ≥35 (50%)6 (12.2%)0.0145 (50%)11 (22.4%)0.12Corner BME ≥45 (50%)3 (6.1%)0.0025 (50%)7 (14.3%)0.022Disclosure of Interests:Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Iris Eshed: None declared, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Susanne Juhl Pedersen Grant/research support from: Novartis, Ulrich Weber: None declared, Manouk de Hooge: None declared, Joachim Sieper Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Martin Rudwaleit Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Robert G Lambert: None declared, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen