Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
  • Log Out
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Review ArticleReview

Classification and Diagnosis of Axial Spondyloarthritis — What Is the Clinically Relevant Difference?

Jurgen Braun, Xenofon Baraliakos, Uta Kiltz, Frank Heldmann and Joachim Sieper
The Journal of Rheumatology January 2015, 42 (1) 31-38; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.130959
Jurgen Braun
From the Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Herne; Rheumatologie, Universitätsmedizin Charité, Berlin, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: juergen.braun@elisabethgruppe.de
Xenofon Baraliakos
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Uta Kiltz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frank Heldmann
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joachim Sieper
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. The Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have added nonradiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) to the classic ankylosing spondylitis (AS) as defined by the modified New York criteria. However, some confusion remains about differences between classification and diagnosis of axSpA. Our objective was to analyze differences between classification and diagnostic criteria by discussing each feature of the classification criteria based on real cases.

Methods. The clinical features of the ASAS classification criteria were evaluated in relation to their significance for an expert diagnosis of axSpA. Twenty cases referred to our tertiary center outpatient clinic were selected because of an incorrect diagnosis of axSpA: 10 cases in which axSpA had been excluded initially because the classification criteria were not fulfilled, and 10 patients who had been previously diagnosed with axSpA because the classification criteria were fulfilled. Upon reevaluation, the former were diagnosed with axSpA while the latter had other diseases.

Results. All items that are part of the classification criteria show some variability related to their relevance for a diagnosis of axSpA. There are clinical features suggestive of axSpA that are not part of the classification criteria. Misinterpretation of imaging procedures contributed to false-positive results. Rarely, other diseases may mimic axSpA.

Conclusion. Because the sensitivity and specificity of the axSpA classification criteria have been around 80% in clinical trials, some false-positive and false-negative cases were expected. It is hoped that their detailed description and discussion will help to increase the understanding of diagnosing axSpA in relation to the ASAS classification criteria.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS
  • CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
  • DIAGNOSIS

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) has long been considered the prototype of the partly heterogeneous group of spondyloarthritides (SpA). The SpA are genetically linked1 and share characteristic clinical features such as inflammatory back pain (IBP) due to sacroiliitis and spondylitis2. Other SpA are enthesitis, arthritis, anterior uveitis, and organ manifestations such as psoriasis and chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)3,4. In addition to clinical findings, imaging [mainly radiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] and laboratory data [mainly HLA-B27 and C-reactive protein (CRP)] are important diagnostic tools5,6,7.

The publication of classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has widened the spectrum of this field8,9, which had largely been determined by the 1984 classification criteria for AS — the established part of axSpA that has definite structural changes in the sacroiliac joints (SIJ)10, in addition to what has now been termed nonradiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) — the subset in which no such changes are present. The main argument for developing new criteria has been the considerable delay until AS is diagnosed11. Because imaging plays an important role in all criteria sets, the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS) has organized expert consensus groups to agree on definitions for inflammatory changes in the SIJ12 and the spine13. Patients with nr-axSpA, who seem to have fewer signs of inflammation in comparison to established AS, may represent axSpA in its early disease stages and may develop structural changes and AS in the near future; however, female patients, especially, may never develop such changes14. The term undifferentiated SpA15 is therefore no longer used by the majority of experts for patients with nr-axSpA. Today it is sometimes used for patients with peripheral SpA who do not have psoriasis, IBD, or a preceding infection.

However, there is still some confusion about the differences between classification and diagnosis of axSpA. Although it is widely known that classification criteria are made for groups of patients and diagnostic criteria are usually made for individual patients, some clarification seems to be necessary on how established classification criteria might be used in daily clinical practice. When new classification criteria are developed and compared to already existing tools, they are usually tested against what is currently regarded as the gold standard. Even though it seems clear that by the introduction of new technologies such as MRI this view may change over time, the gold standard in rheumatology is often the opinion of the rheumatologist who is responsible for the patient, mostly but not always an expert in the field. If the developed criteria are good, the sensitivity and specificity are usually above 80%. This means that although the vast majority of patients is correctly classified, about 20% who fulfill the criteria are false-positive or false-negative. For classification criteria, a clear “yes” or “no” is the result, and negative findings are not taken into account. Responses are being developed for inclusion of a homogeneous group of patients into clinical studies. A positive diagnosis should already be present from the expert when it is tested whether the patient fulfills the criteria. A diagnostic approach is more flexible because it takes negative findings into account, and the final diagnosis is based on the expert’s opinion.

We examine here the use of clinical features for diagnosing axSpA and try to show the differences between classification and diagnosis. We show that there are situations when a diagnosis of axSpA — for example in the presence of other features typical for SpA — is appropriate, when the classification criteria are not fulfilled. On the other hand, we show that there are patients who, for various reasons, do not have axSpA even though they fulfill the classification criteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chronic back pain

Patients with axSpA may present with their first symptoms after some weeks. However, others may have been asymptomatic for long periods and may have forgotten about back pain at earlier timepoints, while still others may have had (inflammatory) chronic back pain for several decades but have not been diagnosed as axSpA yet. Chronic back pain may also occur intermittently. Indeed, for patients with AS, different courses of disease including flares have been described16, with flares having typically lasted days or weeks. However, when patients were asked to characterize their disease pattern, patterns with constant symptoms predominated in > 70% of patients16.

Because back pain may not be the main symptom, or may not be present at all in early disease stages17, or had been present in the past, there are situations where diagnosis of axSpA, in the presence of other typical features, will be potentially appropriate. For example, patients may have had back pain for a long time before visiting a rheumatologist and may show definite radiographic alterations at first presentation. Further, the prevalence of IBP in patients with anterior uveitis, psoriasis, and IBD is quite high18. Some of these patients have axSpA, but back pain is not reported as a predominant symptom.

Although in such cases a diagnosis of peripheral SpA should be considered8,9, it is well known that there is considerable overlap between the 2 SpA entities19, which may make it difficult to determine the predominant symptom. Accordingly, a mixed set for classification has been proposed9. This, however, is infrequently used mainly because the approval of medications has followed the route of differentiating axial versus peripheral SpA. Based on historical experience, this makes sense because at least conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine clearly work better for peripheral arthritis than for IBP20,21, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers work well in both conditions.

The localization of back pain is not part of the classification criteria. However, there is some evidence that this matters clinically. The most common location in the first years after symptom onset is the lower back22. However, inflammatory changes in all parts of the spine may cause symptoms. In patients with established AS, the lower part of the thoracic spine was the most frequent anatomic location23, but other parts of the axial skeleton are also frequently involved24,25. In a study on referral variables for axSpA, the lower back turned out to be the best26.

Age at onset

Although this is clearly not frequently the case, the age at first onset of typical symptoms of axSpA may be older than 45 years. Indeed, several papers have reported on patients with late-onset axSpA27,28,29. Patients may also start to have IBP before the age of 18, although these patients would still fulfill the classification criteria if they were already 18 years old at time of first presentation. In juvenile SpA, patients frequently show SpA with peripheral symptoms and develop back pain some years later17.

Sacroiliitis on imaging

According to the ASAS classification criteria, patients with axSpA may not have inflammatory lesions on MRI suggestive of sacroiliitis associated with SpA. Also, definite radiographic sacroiliitis according to modified New York criteria is not a requirement. In those cases, patients need to be HLA-B27–positive to be classified as axSpA8. On the other hand, patients may have inflammatory (MRI) and/or structural changes (radiography) in the spine that are not so clear in the SIJ. How frequently this occurs has not yet been defined. Reported percentages vary between 5% and 50%30. However, theoretically, a patient with chronic back pain who does not have sacroiliac changes and who is HLA-B27–negative could well be diagnosed with axSpA when clear-cut spondylitis is present along with other variables characteristic for axSpA. Further, recent histologic studies have shown that the sensitivity and specificity of MRI to detect sacroiliac inflammation is clearly far below 100%31,32.

The role of conventional radiography and MRI is central in the classification criteria, and many rheumatologists are reluctant to make a diagnosis of axSpA without a positive imaging finding. The ASAS definitions of sacroiliitis and spondylitis have played an important role in the standardization of imaging12,13. The problem of the widespread performance of sophisticated imaging procedures in primary care has been discussed33,34. Because imaging in axSpA requires experience and knowledge, application of the wrong techniques (excluding short-tau inversion recovery or T1 post-gadolinium) and misinterpretation of imaging results may frequently lead to false-positives and false-negatives. In addition, the difficulty of diagnosing definite structural changes in the SIJ, and of separating AS from diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis, is well known, and the velocity of new bone formation is similar35.

Concern has been raised that in the “clinical arm” of the ASAS criteria, where patients are classified based on a positive HLA-B27 finding plus 2 additional SpA features without a positive imaging result, patients will be falsely classified with axSpA, for example, those with fibromyalgia. This seems possible and is a good example of the differences between classification and diagnosis. Some experience, including a good clinical history and evaluation, will often, but not always, help to make that distinction.

HLA-B27

In the evaluation trial for the ASAS classification criteria, only 66% of the patients were HLA-B27–positive8. As reported, an HLA-B27–negative patient with a normal MRI is unlikely to have axSpA7; however, it is known that a substantial number of the HLA-B27–negative patients is likely to have psoriasis or chronic IBD. On the other hand, the prevalence of HLA-B27 in the population is around 6%–8% in Central European countries and the United States36,37; > 90% of those people are healthy and do not develop SpA38. Based on the high prevalence of back pain in the population22,39, one can expect many healthy (in terms of axSpA) HLA-B27–positive patients with back pain. Thus, these patients are per se likely to receive a diagnosis of axSpA, but two-thirds of them will not have this disease40. Indeed, the differential diagnosis may not be easy, especially because degenerative disc disease may also cause morning stiffness in the lower back41. On the other hand, in countries with a low background prevalence of HLA-B27 and of axSpA, such as Japan42, or a low HLA-B27 prevalence in patients with AS, such as Lebanon43 (in contrast to other Arab countries44), these estimates and calculations will be less relevant. In Europe, HLA-B27 has been shown to be of critical importance for referral strategies in primary care45,46,47.

The likelihood of false-positive or false-negative testing for HLA-B27 has been found to be comparatively low with established techniques (< 5%), and using PCR methodology, this may be even lower48. The fact that more than 100 HLA-B27 subtypes have now been recognized has no practical influence on diagnosis and classification38.

In general, all musculoskeletal and other organ-related symptoms occurring in patients under suspicion of SpA or with SpA may well have a cause unrelated to SpA. But symptoms suggestive of SpA may occur in patients who do not have that disease. The relative frequency of SpA-associated symptoms and disease manifestations can be seen roughly as occurring in 3 groups: 1 group (prevalence around 70%) covers back pain, IBP, positive imaging, a good response to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), and HLA-B27 positivity; the second group (prevalence about 50%) covers arthritis, enthesitis, and elevated CRP; and the third (prevalence about 30%) covers anterior uveitis, dactylitis, psoriasis, IBD, and a family history of SpA.

IBP

While the prevalence of IBP seems to be in the range of 70%–80% in patients with AS, it is less well investigated in nr-axSpA. Although a similar prevalence can be assumed30,49,50, data-based prevalence rates remain to be demonstrated. In such studies, it will be important to use the opinion of experienced rheumatologists rather than classification criteria as the gold standard. Further, there is currently no general agreement on which criteria for IBP should be used in daily practice2. Nevertheless, this does not seem to matter much because the proposed criteria perform similarly well in daily rheumatology practice. This is most likely related to the high pretest probability of patients with axSpA who get to see a rheumatologist. However, the probability is different in other settings, such as in primary care, where the pretest probability of axSpA is around 5% in the group of patients with back pain51 and the resulting posttest probability for a diagnosis of axSpA is no higher than 20%39. Indeed, there is some evidence that the performance of the ASAS criteria may differ in different clinical situations46,49. Further, IBP is a frequent complaint in the population18,36. For example, morning stiffness of the lower back alone has been shown to not differentiate well between patients with axSpA and other patients with chronic back problems in primary care26. Finally, in the diagnostic pyramid published some years ago, IBP versus chronic back pain did not contribute substantially more to a diagnosis of axSpA52. However, data from another study on IBP in AS suggested that the presence of 3 out of 4 IBP items had high specificity (97%) for a diagnosis of AS — of course the sensitivity was low in that calculatory approach53.

IBP is a characteristic symptom of patients with SpA in the offices of rheumatologists but has limited sensitivity and specificity in other settings.

Arthritis

Every experienced rheumatologist knows how difficult it can be to diagnose arthritis, because many patients report arthralgia. Because the physical examination may be misleading, different imaging procedures are used to provide “objective” evidence of joint inflammation. Indeed, MRI and ultrasound including Doppler techniques are increasingly used, and scintigraphy is frequently performed. However, all these depend greatly on the expertise of the examiner. Thus, false-positive and false-negative results are relevant matters of concern.

The asymmetric pattern of the most frequently presented oligoarthritis and the predominance of the lower extremities are relevant in relation to a possible diagnosis of SpA54. There is currently no ideal assessment tool for the quantification of arthritis in SpA, because the joint counts that are used to assess polyarthritis in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not work well in oligoarticular disease in SpA.

Clinical examination and imaging may lead to false-positive and false-negative findings in the assessment of arthritis and may have an influence on the diagnosis of SpA.

Enthesitis (heel)

Although involvement of entheseal structures is regarded as a characteristic sign of SpA, it is clear that it also occurs in other inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as RA55. Clearly, there are many more sites of enthesitis than the heel in SpA56. For example, the shoulder may be involved57. On the other hand, sites such as the epicondyles of the elbow are frequent locations of symptoms in patients who have mechanical stress other than SpA. Further, currently used assessment tools for clinical enthesitis vary substantially53,58,59. However, because enthesitis and painful entheses may not appear to be very impressive in the clinical examination, imaging is a relevant tool to provide “objective” evidence of inflammation — especially for the plantar fascia, where MRI techniques are used. For other entheses, such as the pes anserinus and the great trochanter, ultrasound is the most reliable tool. Imaging studies using power Doppler have suggested that subclinical enthesitis may be frequent at various sites60. However, the clinical relevance of this finding remains to be demonstrated.

False-positive and false-negative findings in clinical examination and imaging in the assessment of enthesitis may influence the diagnosis of SpA.

Uveitis

A high prevalence of anterior uveitis (in the range of 30%–40%) has been reported for AS61,62, while this number seems to be lower for nr-axSpA49, probably because patients are earlier in the course of their disease, and the rate of HLA-B27 is somewhat lower. Anterior uveitis associated with SpA usually occurs acutely and unilaterally and is easily treated with local corticosteroids in the majority of cases62,63. Anterior uveitis may also occur in other rheumatic diseases such as sarcoidosis and Lyme disease64, but in other rheumatic diseases such as Behçet disease it is more the posterior compartment of the uvea or both compartments (panuveitis) that become involved. In other rheumatic diseases, the conjunctiva (reactive arthritis), the sclera, and the retina (in RA) may become affected64. Because the rheumatologist is usually not able to exactly differentiate the anatomic localization of an inflammatory eye disease, such symptoms are usually handled in cooperation with the ophthalmologist. Indeed, in many countries, it is the usual attitude of eye specialists to refer patients with anterior uveitis to the rheumatologist to identify SpA.

An incorrect diagnosis of uveitis may clearly affect the diagnostic examination in patients suspected of SpA. In the diagnostic pyramid proposed some years ago52, anterior uveitis was the strongest multiplicatory clinical factor (RR > 7).

Dactylitis

Although occurring in all SpA subtypes, the usually impressive clinical finding of dactylitis (sausage finger or toe) has its highest prevalence in psoriatic arthritis (PsA)65. An assessment tool specifically for quantifying dactylitis has been proposed66. While the overall sensitivity of dactylitis in SpA is not very high, its specificity is good, because it does not usually occur in other rheumatic diseases. Rarely, active osteoarthritis (OA) of the proximal interphalangeal joints may cause such diagnostic problems. The main differential diagnosis of dactylitis is trauma — which can be ruled out easily when taking the patient’s history.

Psoriasis

Psoriasis is a relatively frequent finding in the population (2%–3%58) and in patients diagnosed with SpA67,68. The diagnosis usually requires the cooperation of an experienced dermatologist. The diagnostic approach may be difficult and the diagnosis may remain unclear for some time. There are different kinds of psoriasis, including vulgaris, guttata, and palmaris et plantaris; they should be differentiated by the dermatologist, who may not find this easy in all cases. In addition, other skin and nail diseases such as neurodermitis and tinea pedis may have a similar appearance. In the new classification criteria for PsA69, the written diagnosis of the dermatologist is usually mandatory. In contrast, the rheumatologist may decide in individual cases that the apparent squamous skin efflorescence in combination with a very suggestive clinical sign of dactylitis and arthritis may be sufficient for a diagnosis of SpA or PsA. The rheumatologist may not find it very easy to differentiate OA occurring in a patient having psoriasis from PsA — especially if proximal and distal interphalangeal joints as well as the back70 are involved. The presence of psoriasis predominantly palmar or plantar may be associated with a special subtype of SpA and PsA that has been named SAPHO syndrome (synovitis, acne, pustolosis, hyperostosis, and osteitis)71.

Importantly, based on other suggestive clinical and/or imaging findings, PsA may be diagnosed even without an apparent skin disease72. Some but not all of these patients may have a family history of psoriasis. Further, the onset of psoriasis can come before or after the onset of musculoskeletal symptoms72.

The presence of psoriasis in connection with other symptoms suggestive of SpA is a clinically relevant finding that may significantly support a diagnosis of axSpA. Indeed, psoriasis was even identified as an item of a 2-step referral program for the early identification of axSpA46. However, patients with psoriasis may well have musculoskeletal symptoms that are not explained by an underlying SpA.

Chronic IBD (Crohn disease/ulcerative colitis)

In comparison to psoriasis, Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis are less prevalent in the overall population73. Patients under suspicion of SpA with gastrointestinal symptoms should undergo endoscopy. The diagnosis always requires cooperation with an experienced gastroenterologist who cooperates with a pathologist, but even so, the diagnostic approach may prove difficult, and the diagnosis may remain unclear for some time. Although the association of IBD with SpA is in general well established74, it seems that not all patients with musculoskeletal symptoms in conjunction with IBD have a condition in the spectrum of SpA. The largest study of the association of all kinds of arthritis with IBD suggested that there are 2 types, one showing some association with SpA including HLA-B27, and one not75,76. This study was based on clinical and genetic findings. A completely different approach has been the systematic search for macroscopic and microscopic colitis in patients with different types of SpA74. However, this approach has not made its way to a clinical pathway related to making a diagnosis of SpA.

In addition, similar to the situation in psoriasis, the onset of symptomatic IBD may be before, after, or in parallel to arthritis or other musculoskeletal symptoms77.

The gastroenterologist makes the diagnosis of IBD. The presence of IBD in connection with other symptoms suggestive of SpA is a clinically relevant finding that may significantly support a diagnosis of axSpA. However, patients with IBD may well have musculoskeletal symptoms not explained by an underlying SpA. Differential features of SpA between IBD and psoriasis have been described77.

Good response to NSAID

This item has been included based on the publication of Amor78 and on clinical experience with the partly impressive clinical responses of patients with axSpA. The problem with the item is that it is not very precise in its quantitative aspect and raises the question, “what is a good response?” This has not been precisely defined to date. However, it is clear that, for example, patients with nonspecific low back pain respond poorly to NSAID and only about 20%–25% report clinically relevant improvement79. Because the success rates reported for patients with axSpA are in the range of 70%–80%, this item fits quite well among the diagnostic variables for axSpA52. However, it is clear that both false-positive and false-negative results may influence the diagnostic approach to patients under suspicion of axSpA.

Family history of SpA

A positive family history is usually defined as having first-degree relatives in whom a diagnosis of SpA has been made10. Patients with SpA report a positive family history in about a third of the cases49,80,81. In the last set of the classification criteria8,9 this has included the presence in first-degree or second-degree relatives of any of the following: AS, psoriasis, uveitis, reactive arthritis, or IBD.

Thus, there is some variance in how family history is handled at least in the classification but also in the diagnostic approach to SpA.

Elevated CRP

While the role of elevated CRP serum levels to indicate high disease activity has recently become more and more established — especially in predicting response to anti-TNF therapy82,83,84 and response to NSAID therapy regarding the prevention of radiographic progression in the spine85,86 — it has also been shown that the correlation of clinical disease activity and serum CRP levels is relatively weak87,88. Further, in patients with extraarticular manifestations, especially IBD but also psoriasis, CRP levels may be raised just because of the underlying disease and not because of the musculoskeletal involvement. This can be difficult to differentiate but should be always tried. Of course, in daily clinical practice one always has to rule out other reasons for an elevated CRP.

RESULTS

An online supplement available at jrheum.org presents descriptions and images of cases misclassified to axSpA (false positive) or for which classification was missed despite the designation of axSpA (false negative).

DISCUSSION

Because diagnosis of axSpA may be difficult among a large population with back pain, and the use of classification criteria for diagnosing patients is often misunderstood, we used our experience in the field to give examples of patients evaluated for a potential diagnosis of axSpA in our clinic. We present examples of both false-positive and false-negative diagnoses in patients who had been evaluated for axSpA. Because imaging is an important part of the classification criteria, it was not surprising to find several cases in which interpretation of the images rather than the ASAS criteria themselves impeded correct diagnosis. These examples should help to further understand the problems potentially associated with classifying and diagnosing axSpA.

However, it was not possible to cover all important differential diagnoses in the examples described. Therefore we looked into our database and the literature (Table 1) to show other rheumatic diseases in which sacroiliitis or similar sacroiliac changes may occur89,90,91,92,93,94. The scarcity of related publications and our own experience suggest that these cases are relatively rare. A major differential diagnosis that can be complicated, osteitis condensans95, clearly needs more study.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Differential diagnoses of sacroiliitis.

Another important differential diagnosis that has not been mentioned in detail is infectious sacroiliitis or spondylitis due to a bacterial infection96,97,98. Although staphylococci and streptococci are clearly the most frequent microbes detected (for example, in patients with drug dependency), cases of tuberculosis and brucellosis have also been reported, albeit more frequently in countries with high background rates97,98. These pathologies are usually characterized by malaise and fever in addition to back pain — symptoms substantially less frequent in patients with axSpA.

What may cause a diagnostic challenge is the clinical situation in which patients have a history of pyogenic infection in the SIJ, because the structural changes that usually occur in bacterial infection may mimic the changes known in AS99. Osteoarthritic changes in the axial skeleton including the SIJ are known to occur more frequently with increasing age100,101. Thus, this differential diagnosis to axSpA usually does not cause problems before the age of 40 years.

Another important differential diagnosis is a pelvic fracture, most frequently seen in postmenopausal women102 but also in younger patients after minor trauma103. Rarely, a malignancy such as lymphoma, leukemia, or even sarcoma may occur104,105,106. Severe pain and nonresponse to standard therapies should increase suspicion of such diagnoses.

Our aim was to put the diagnosis and classification of axSpA into perspective. We have shown that a diagnosis of axSpA can be made in patients not fulfilling the ASAS classification criteria and that patients fulfilling the criteria may ultimately not be diagnosed with axSpA. Importantly, we stress that the absence of radiographic changes excludes neither a diagnosis nor a classification of axSpA.

ONLINE SUPPLEMENT

Supplementary data for this article are available online at jrheum.org.

  • Accepted for publication April 9, 2014.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Reveille JD
    . The genetic basis of spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70 Suppl 1:i44–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Braun J,
    2. Inman R
    . Clinical significance of inflammatory back pain for diagnosis and screening of patients with axial spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1264–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Braun J,
    2. Sieper J
    . Ankylosing spondylitis. Lancet 2007;369:1379–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Dougados M,
    2. Baeten D
    . Spondyloarthritis. Lancet 2011;377:2127–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Braun J,
    2. Baraliakos X
    . Imaging of axial spondyloarthritis including ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70 Suppl 1:i97–103.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Heuft-Dorenbosch L,
    2. Landewe R,
    3. Weijers R,
    4. Wanders A,
    5. Houben H,
    6. van der Linden S,
    7. et al.
    Combining information obtained from magnetic resonance imaging and conventional radiographs to detect sacroiliitis in patients with recent onset inflammatory back pain. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:804–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. van Onna M,
    2. Jurik AG,
    3. van der Heijde D,
    4. van Tubergen A,
    5. Heuft-Dorenbosch L,
    6. Landewe R
    . HLA-B27 and gender independently determine the likelihood of a positive MRI of the sacroiliac joints in patients with early inflammatory back pain: a 2-year MRI follow-up study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1981–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Landewe R,
    4. Listing J,
    5. Akkoc N,
    6. Brandt J,
    7. et al.
    The development of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part II): validation and final selection. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:777–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Landewe R,
    4. Akkoc N,
    5. Brandt J,
    6. Chou CT,
    7. et al.
    The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society classification criteria for peripheral spondyloarthritis and for spondyloarthritis in general. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:25–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. van der Linden S,
    2. Valkenburg HA,
    3. Cats A
    . Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. A proposal for modification of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum 1984;27:361–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Feldtkeller E,
    2. Khan MA,
    3. van der Heijde D,
    4. van der Linden S,
    5. Braun J
    . Age at disease onset and diagnosis delay in HLA-B27 negative vs. positive patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology Int 2003;23:61–6.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. Jurik AG,
    3. Hermann KG,
    4. Landewe R,
    5. van der Heijde D,
    6. Baraliakos X,
    7. et al.
    Defining active sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for classification of axial spondyloarthritis: a consensual approach by the ASAS/OMERACT MRI group. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1520–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Hermann KG,
    2. Baraliakos X,
    3. van der Heijde DM,
    4. Jurik AG,
    5. Landewe R,
    6. Marzo-Ortega H,
    7. et al.
    Descriptions of spinal MRI lesions and definition of a positive MRI of the spine in axial spondyloarthritis: a consensual approach by the ASAS/OMERACT MRI study group. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1278–88.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Kiltz U,
    2. Baraliakos X,
    3. Karakostas P,
    4. Igelmann M,
    5. Kalthoff L,
    6. Klink C,
    7. et al.
    Do patients with non-radiographic axial spondylarthritis differ from patients with ankylosing spondylitis? Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:1415–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    1. Zochling J,
    2. Brandt J,
    3. Braun J
    . The current concept of spondyloarthritis with special emphasis on undifferentiated spondyloarthritis. Rheumatology 2005;44:1483–91.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Stone MA,
    2. Pomeroy E,
    3. Keat A,
    4. Sengupta R,
    5. Hickey S,
    6. Dieppe P,
    7. et al.
    Assessment of the impact of flares in ankylosing spondylitis disease activity using the Flare Illustration. Rheumatology 2008;47:1213–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Burgos-Vargas R,
    2. Vazquez-Mellado J
    . The early clinical recognition of juvenile-onset ankylosing spondylitis and its differentiation from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:835–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Weisman MH,
    2. Witter JP,
    3. Reveille JD
    . The prevalence of inflammatory back pain: population-based estimates from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009–10. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:369–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Brandt J,
    2. Bollow M,
    3. Haberle J,
    4. Rudwaleit M,
    5. Eggens U,
    6. Distler A,
    7. et al.
    Studying patients with inflammatory back pain and arthritis of the lower limbs clinically and by magnetic resonance imaging: many, but not all patients with sacroiliitis have spondyloarthropathy. Rheumatology 1999;38:831–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Nissila M,
    2. Lehtinen K,
    3. Leirisalo-Repo M,
    4. Luukkainen R,
    5. Mutru O,
    6. Yli-Kerttula U
    . Sulfasalazine in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. A twenty-six-week, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum 1988;31:1111–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Dougados M,
    2. vam der Linden S,
    3. Leirisalo-Repo M,
    4. Huitfeldt B,
    5. Juhlin R,
    6. Veys E,
    7. et al.
    Sulfasalazine in the treatment of spondylarthropathy. A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:618–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Deyo RA,
    2. Mirza SK,
    3. Martin BI
    . Back pain prevalence and visit rates: estimates from U.S. national surveys, 2002. Spine 2006;31:2724–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Baraliakos X,
    2. Landewe R,
    3. Hermann KG,
    4. Listing J,
    5. Golder W,
    6. Brandt J,
    7. et al.
    Inflammation in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic description of the extent and frequency of acute spinal changes using magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:730–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Weber U,
    2. Lambert RG,
    3. Rufibach K,
    4. Maksymowych WP,
    5. Hodler J,
    6. Zejden A,
    7. et al.
    Anterior chest wall inflammation by whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with spondyloarthritis: lack of association between clinical and imaging findings in a cross-sectional study. Arthritis Res Ther 2012;14:R3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Ramonda R,
    2. Lorenzin M,
    3. Lo Nigro A,
    4. Vio S,
    5. Zucchetta P,
    6. Frallonardo P,
    7. et al.
    Anterior chest wall involvement in early stages of spondyloarthritis: advanced diagnostic tools. J Rheumatol 2012;39:1844–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Braun A,
    2. Saracbasi E,
    3. Grifka J,
    4. Schnitker J,
    5. Braun J
    . Identifying patients with axial spondyloarthritis in primary care: how useful are items indicative of inflammatory back pain? Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1782–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Olivieri I,
    2. Padula A,
    3. Pierro A,
    4. Favaro L,
    5. Oranges GS,
    6. Ferri S
    . Late onset undifferentiated seronegative spondyloarthropathy. J Rheumatol 1995;22:899–903.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Olivieri I,
    2. D’Angelo S,
    3. Palazzi C,
    4. Leccese P,
    5. Padula A
    . Late-onset spondyloarthritis: subset that should not be forgotten. J Rheumatol 2012;39:1110–2.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Montilla C,
    2. Del Pino-Montes J,
    3. Collantes-Estevez E,
    4. Font P,
    5. Zarco P,
    6. Mulero J,
    7. et al.
    Clinical features of late-onset ankylosing spondylitis: comparison with early-onset disease. J Rheumatol 2012;39:1008–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Sieper J,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Dougados M,
    4. Mease PJ,
    5. Maksymowych WP,
    6. Brown MA,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: results of a randomised placebo-controlled trial (ABILITY-1). Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:815–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Appel H,
    2. Loddenkemper C,
    3. Grozdanovic Z,
    4. Ebhardt H,
    5. Dreimann M,
    6. Hempfing A,
    7. et al.
    Correlation of histopathological findings and magnetic resonance imaging in the spine of patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Res Ther 2006;8:R143.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Gong Y,
    2. Zheng N,
    3. Chen SB,
    4. Xiao ZY,
    5. Wu MY,
    6. Liu Y,
    7. et al.
    Ten years’ experience with needle biopsy in the early diagnosis of sacroiliitis. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:1399–406.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Srinivas SV,
    2. Deyo RA,
    3. Berger ZD
    . Application of “less is more” to low back pain. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:1016–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. Märker-Hermann E
    . [Management of nonspecific low back pain. The new national guidelines 2011]. [Article in German] Z Rheumatol 2012;71:485–97; quiz 98–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Baraliakos X,
    2. Listing J,
    3. Buschmann J,
    4. von der Recke A,
    5. Braun J
    . A comparison of new bone formation in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and patients with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: a retrospective cohort study over six years. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:1127–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Braun J,
    2. Bollow M,
    3. Remlinger G,
    4. Eggens U,
    5. Rudwaleit M,
    6. Distler A,
    7. et al.
    Prevalence of spondylarthropathies in HLA-B27 positive and negative blood donors. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:58–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Reveille JD,
    2. Hirsch R,
    3. Dillon CF,
    4. Carroll MD,
    5. Weisman MH
    . The prevalence of HLA-B27 in the US: data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:1407–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Robinson PC,
    2. Brown MA
    . The genetics of ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2012;38:539–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Hoy D,
    2. Bain C,
    3. Williams G,
    4. March L,
    5. Brooks P,
    6. Blyth F,
    7. et al.
    A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:2028–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. Khan MA,
    3. Sieper J
    . The challenge of diagnosis and classification in early ankylosing spondylitis: do we need new criteria? Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:1000–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Scheele J,
    2. de Schepper EI,
    3. van Meurs JB,
    4. Hofman A,
    5. Koes BW,
    6. Luijsterburg PA,
    7. et al.
    Association between spinal morning stiffness and lumbar disc degeneration: the Rotterdam Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012;20:982–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Hukuda S,
    2. Minami M,
    3. Saito T,
    4. Mitsui H,
    5. Matsui N,
    6. Komatsubara Y,
    7. et al.
    Spondyloarthropathies in Japan: nationwide questionnaire survey performed by the Japan Ankylosing Spondylitis Society. J Rheumatol 2001;28:554–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Awada H,
    2. Abi-Karam G,
    3. Baddoura R,
    4. Okais J,
    5. Attoui S
    . Clinical, radiological, and laboratory findings in Lebanese spondylarthropathy patients according to HLA-B27 status. Joint Bone Spine 2000;67:194–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Mustafa KN,
    2. Hammoudeh M,
    3. Khan MA
    . HLA-B27 prevalence in Arab populations and among patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2012;39:1675–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Sieper J,
    2. Srinivasan S,
    3. Zamani O,
    4. Mielants H,
    5. Choquette D,
    6. Pavelka K,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of two referral strategies for diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis: the Recognising and Diagnosing Ankylosing Spondylitis Reliably (RADAR) study. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1621–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Braun A,
    2. Gnann H,
    3. Saracbasi E,
    4. Grifka J,
    5. Kiltz U,
    6. Letschert K,
    7. et al.
    Optimizing the identification of patients with axial spondyloarthritis in primary care—the case for a two-step strategy combining the most relevant clinical items with HLA B27. Rheumatology 2013;52:1418–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Poddubnyy D,
    2. Vahldiek J,
    3. Spiller I,
    4. Buss B,
    5. Listing J,
    6. Rudwaleit M,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation of 2 screening strategies for early identification of patients with axial spondyloarthritis in primary care. J Rheumatol 2011;38:2452–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Kirveskari J,
    2. Kellner H,
    3. Wuorela M,
    4. Soini H,
    5. Frankenberger B,
    6. Leirisalo-Repo M,
    7. et al.
    False-negative serological HLA-B27 typing results may be due to altered antigenic epitopes and can be detected by polymerase chain reaction. Br J Rheumatol 1997;36:185–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. Haibel H,
    3. Baraliakos X,
    4. Listing J,
    5. Marker-Hermann E,
    6. Zeidler H,
    7. et al.
    The early disease stage in axial spondylarthritis: results from the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort. Arthritis Rheum 2009;60:717–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Robinson PC,
    2. Wordsworth BP,
    3. Reveille JD,
    4. Brown MA
    . Axial spondyloarthritis: a new disease entity, not necessarily early ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:162–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Underwood MR,
    2. Dawes P
    . Inflammatory back pain in primary care. Br J Rheumatol 1995;34:1074–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Khan MA,
    4. Braun J,
    5. Sieper J
    . How to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis early. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:535–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. Metter A,
    3. Listing J,
    4. Sieper J,
    5. Braun J
    . Inflammatory back pain in ankylosing spondylitis: a reassessment of the clinical history for application as classification and diagnostic criteria. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:569–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Dougados M,
    2. van der Linden S,
    3. Juhlin R,
    4. Huitfeldt B,
    5. Amor B,
    6. Calin A,
    7. et al.
    The European Spondylarthropathy Study Group preliminary criteria for the classification of spondylarthropathy. Arthritis Rheum 1991;34:1218–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. McGonagle D,
    2. Gibbon W,
    3. O’Connor P,
    4. Green M,
    5. Pease C,
    6. Emery P
    . Characteristic magnetic resonance imaging entheseal changes of knee synovitis in spondylarthropathy. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:694–700.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Mander M,
    2. Simpson JM,
    3. McLellan A,
    4. Walker D,
    5. Goodacre JA,
    6. Dick WC
    . Studies with an enthesis index as a method of clinical assessment in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 1987;46:197–202.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    1. Lambert RG,
    2. Dhillon SS,
    3. Jhangri GS,
    4. Sacks J,
    5. Sacks H,
    6. Wong B,
    7. et al.
    High prevalence of symptomatic enthesopathy of the shoulder in ankylosing spondylitis: deltoid origin involvement constitutes a hallmark of disease. Arthritis Rheum 2004;51:681–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Heuft-Dorenbosch L,
    2. Spoorenberg A,
    3. van Tubergen A,
    4. Landewe R,
    5. van ver Tempel H,
    6. Mielants H,
    7. et al.
    Assessment of enthesitis in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62:127–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. 59.↵
    1. van der Heijde D,
    2. Braun J,
    3. Deodhar A,
    4. Inman RD,
    5. Xu S,
    6. Mack ME,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of three enthesitis indices in a multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of golimumab in ankylosing spondylitis (GO-RAISE). Rheumatology 2013;52:321–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    1. D’Agostino MA,
    2. Saraux A,
    3. Chary-Valckenaere I,
    4. Marcelli C,
    5. Guis S,
    6. Gaudin P,
    7. et al.
    Can we improve the diagnosis of spondyloarthritis in patients with uncertain diagnosis? The EchoSpA prospective multicenter French cohort. Joint Bone Spine 2012;79:586–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Stolwijk C,
    2. Boonen A,
    3. van Tubergen A,
    4. Reveille JD
    . Epidemiology of spondyloarthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2012;38:441–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Jimenez-Balderas FJ,
    2. Fernandez-Arrieta G,
    3. Camargo-Coronel A,
    4. Ake-Uc MA,
    5. Vazquez-Zaragoza MA,
    6. Zonana-Nacach A,
    7. et al.
    Uveitis in adult patients with rheumatic inflammatory autoimmune diseases at a tertiary-care hospital in Mexico City. J Rheumatol 2011;38:325–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    1. Monnet D,
    2. Breban M,
    3. Hudry C,
    4. Dougados M,
    5. Brezin AP
    . Ophthalmic findings and frequency of extraocular manifestations in patients with HLA-B27 uveitis: a study of 175 cases. Ophthalmology 2004;111:802–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Hamideh F,
    2. Prete PE
    . Ophthalmologic manifestations of rheumatic diseases. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2001;30:217–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Payet J,
    2. Gossec L,
    3. Paternotte S,
    4. Burki V,
    5. Durnez A,
    6. Elhai M,
    7. et al.
    Prevalence and clinical characteristics of dactylitis in spondylarthritis: a descriptive analysis of 275 patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2012;30:191–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Helliwell PS,
    2. Firth J,
    3. Ibrahim GH,
    4. Melsom RD,
    5. Shah I,
    6. Turner DE
    . Development of an assessment tool for dactylitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol 2005;32:1745–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. 67.↵
    1. Schäfer I,
    2. Rustenbach SJ,
    3. Radtke M,
    4. Augustin J,
    5. Glaeske G,
    6. Augustin M
    . [Epidemiology of psoriasis in Germany—analysis of secondary health insurance data]. [Article in German] Gesundheitswesen 2011;73:308–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Reich K,
    2. Kruger K,
    3. Mossner R,
    4. Augustin M
    . Epidemiology and clinical pattern of psoriatic arthritis in Germany: a prospective interdisciplinary epidemiological study of 1511 patients with plaque-type psoriasis. Br J Dermatol 2009;160:1040–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Taylor W,
    2. Gladman D,
    3. Helliwell P,
    4. Marchesoni A,
    5. Mease P,
    6. Mielants H,
    7. et al.
    Classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis: development of new criteria from a large international study. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:2665–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Richette P,
    2. Tubach F,
    3. Breban M,
    4. Viguier M,
    5. Bachelez H,
    6. Bardin T,
    7. et al.
    Psoriasis and phenotype of patients with early inflammatory back pain. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:566–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. 71.↵
    1. Magrey M,
    2. Khan MA
    . New insights into synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, and osteitis (SAPHO) syndrome. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2009;11:329–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Mease PJ
    . Psoriatic arthritis: update on pathophysiology, assessment and management. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70 Suppl 1:i77–84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.↵
    1. Molodecky NA,
    2. Soon IS,
    3. Rabi DM,
    4. Ghali WA,
    5. Ferris M,
    6. Chernoff G,
    7. et al.
    Increasing incidence and prevalence of the inflammatory bowel diseases with time, based on systematic review. Gastroenterology 2012;142:46–54 e42; quiz e30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Van Praet L,
    2. Van den Bosch FE,
    3. Jacques P,
    4. Carron P,
    5. Jans L,
    6. Colman R,
    7. et al.
    Microscopic gut inflammation in axial spondyloarthritis: a multiparametric predictive model. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:414–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. 75.↵
    1. Orchard TR,
    2. Thiyagaraja S,
    3. Welsh KI,
    4. Wordsworth BP,
    5. Hill Gaston JS,
    6. Jewell DP
    . Clinical phenotype is related to HLA genotype in the peripheral arthropathies of inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 2000;118:274–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    1. Orchard TR,
    2. Wordsworth BP,
    3. Jewell DP
    . Peripheral arthropathies in inflammatory bowel disease: their articular distribution and natural history. Gut 1998;42:387–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. 77.↵
    1. Perez Alamino R,
    2. Maldonado Cocco JA,
    3. Citera G,
    4. Arturi P,
    5. Vazquez-Mellado J,
    6. Sampaio-Barros PD,
    7. et al.
    Differential features between primary ankylosing spondylitis and spondylitis associated with psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. J Rheumatol 2011;38:1656–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. 78.↵
    1. Amor B
    . [Response to treatment as an aid to diagnosis]. [Article in French] Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic 1992;59:3S–6S.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    1. Roelofs PD,
    2. Deyo RA,
    3. Koes BW,
    4. Scholten RJ,
    5. van Tulder MW
    . Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008(1):CD000396.
  80. 80.↵
    1. Breban M,
    2. Said-Nahal R,
    3. Hugot JP,
    4. Miceli-Richard C
    . Familial and genetic aspects of spondyloarthropathy. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2003;29:575–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Porcher R,
    2. Said-Nahal R,
    3. D’Agostino MA,
    4. Miceli-Richard C,
    5. Dougados M,
    6. Breban M
    . Two major spondylarthropathy phenotypes are distinguished by pattern analysis in multiplex families. Arthritis Rheum 2005;53:263–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. Listing J,
    3. Brandt J,
    4. Braun J,
    5. Sieper J
    . Prediction of a major clinical response (BASDAI 50) to tumour necrosis factor alpha blockers in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:665–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. 83.↵
    1. de Vries MK,
    2. van Eijk IC,
    3. van der Horst-Bruinsma IE,
    4. Peters MJ,
    5. Nurmohamed MT,
    6. Dijkmans BA,
    7. et al.
    Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein level, and serum amyloid a protein for patient selection and monitoring of anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61:1484–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    1. Vastesaeger N,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Inman RD,
    4. Wang Y,
    5. Deodhar A,
    6. Hsu B,
    7. et al.
    Predicting the outcome of ankylosing spondylitis therapy. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:973–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. 85.↵
    1. Kroon F,
    2. Landewe R,
    3. Dougados M,
    4. van der Heijde D
    . Continuous NSAID use reverts the effects of inflammation on radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1623–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. 86.↵
    1. Poddubnyy D,
    2. Rudwaleit M,
    3. Haibel H,
    4. Listing J,
    5. Marker-Hermann E,
    6. Zeidler H,
    7. et al.
    Effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on radiographic spinal progression in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: results from the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1616–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. 87.↵
    1. Spoorenberg A,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. de Klerk E,
    4. Dougados M,
    5. de Vlam K,
    6. Mielants H,
    7. et al.
    Relative value of erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein in assessment of disease activity in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 1999;26:980–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    1. Ruof J,
    2. Stucki G
    . Validity aspects of erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein in ankylosing spondylitis: a literature review. J Rheumatol 1999;26:966–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    1. Justiniano M,
    2. Colmegna I,
    3. Cuchacovich R,
    4. Espinoza LR
    . Spondyloarthritis as a presentation of gouty arthritis. J Rheumatol 2007;34:1157–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  90. 90.↵
    1. Francois S,
    2. Guaydier-Souquieres G,
    3. Marcelli C
    . Acute sacroiliitis as a manifestation of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate crystal deposition disease. A report of two cases. Rev Rhum Engl Ed 1997;64:508–12.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    1. Kohli M,
    2. Bennett RM
    . Sacroiliitis in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 1994;21:170–1.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    1. Kotter I,
    2. Durk H,
    3. Saal JG
    . Sacroiliitis in sarcoidosis: case reports and review of the literature. Clin Rheumatol 1995;14:695–700.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    1. Kasifoglu T,
    2. Calisir C,
    3. Cansu DU,
    4. Korkmaz C
    . The frequency of sacroiliitis in familial Mediterranean fever and the role of HLA-B27 and MEFV mutations in the development of sacroiliitis. Clin Rheumatol 2009;28:41–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    1. Oostveen JC,
    2. van de Laar MA
    . Magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatic disorders of the spine and sacroiliac joints. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2000;30:52–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.↵
    1. Olivieri I,
    2. Gemignani G,
    3. Camerini E,
    4. Semeria R,
    5. Christou C,
    6. Giustarini S,
    7. et al.
    Differential diagnosis between osteitis condensans ilii and sacroiliitis. J Rheumatol 1990;17:1504–12.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  96. 96.↵
    1. Hermet M,
    2. Minichiello E,
    3. Flipo RM,
    4. Dubost JJ,
    5. Allanore Y,
    6. Ziza JM,
    7. et al.
    Infectious sacroiliitis: a retrospective, multicentre study of 39 adults. BMC Infect Dis 2012;12:305.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    1. Bouajina E,
    2. Harzallah L,
    3. Hachfi W,
    4. Slama KB,
    5. Rammeh N,
    6. Ghannouchi M,
    7. et al.
    [Tuberculous sacroiliitis: a series of twenty-two cases]. [Article in French] Rev Med Interne 2005;26:690–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. 98.↵
    1. Gokhale YA,
    2. Ambardekar AG,
    3. Bhasin A,
    4. Patil M,
    5. Tillu A,
    6. Kamath J
    . Brucella spondylitis and sacroiliitis in the general population in Mumbai. J Assoc Physicians India 2003;51:659–66.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  99. 99.↵
    1. Backhaus M,
    2. Kamradt T,
    3. Loreck D
    . Sacroiliitis – it’s not all B 27. Z Rheumatol 1999;58:213–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    1. Shibata Y,
    2. Shirai Y,
    3. Miyamoto M
    . The aging process in the sacroiliac joint: helical computed tomography analysis. J Orthop Sci 2002;7:12–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    1. O’Shea FD,
    2. Boyle E,
    3. Salonen DC,
    4. Ammendolia C,
    5. Peterson C,
    6. Hsu W,
    7. et al.
    Inflammatory and degenerative sacroiliac joint disease in a primary back pain cohort. Arthritis Care Res 2010;62:447–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  102. 102.↵
    1. Galbraith JG,
    2. Butler JS,
    3. Blake SP,
    4. Kelleher G
    . Sacral insufficiency fractures: an easily overlooked cause of back pain in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 2011;29:359.e5–6.
    OpenUrl
  103. 103.↵
    1. Silva RT,
    2. De Bortoli A,
    3. Laurino CF,
    4. Abdalla RJ,
    5. Cohen M
    . Sacral stress fracture: an unusual cause of low back pain in an amateur tennis player. Br J Sports Med 2006;40:460–1.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  104. 104.↵
    1. Cohen MR,
    2. Carrera GE,
    3. Lundberg J
    . Rapidly progressive sacroiliitis in a patient with lymphocytic lymphoma. Ann Rheum Dis 1993;52:239–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. 105.↵
    1. Hoshino T,
    2. Matsushima T,
    3. Saitoh Y,
    4. Yamane A,
    5. Takizawa M,
    6. Irisawa H,
    7. et al.
    Sacroiliitis as an initial manifestation of acute myelogenous leukemia. Int J Hematol 2006;84:421–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. 106.↵
    1. Solmaz D,
    2. Onen F,
    3. Balci A,
    4. Akar S
    . Pelvic Ewing sarcoma mimicking sacroiliitis. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:290.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 42, Issue 1
1 Jan 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Classification and Diagnosis of Axial Spondyloarthritis — What Is the Clinically Relevant Difference?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Classification and Diagnosis of Axial Spondyloarthritis — What Is the Clinically Relevant Difference?
Jurgen Braun, Xenofon Baraliakos, Uta Kiltz, Frank Heldmann, Joachim Sieper
The Journal of Rheumatology Jan 2015, 42 (1) 31-38; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.130959

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Classification and Diagnosis of Axial Spondyloarthritis — What Is the Clinically Relevant Difference?
Jurgen Braun, Xenofon Baraliakos, Uta Kiltz, Frank Heldmann, Joachim Sieper
The Journal of Rheumatology Jan 2015, 42 (1) 31-38; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.130959
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Keywords

AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS
CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
DIAGNOSIS

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Is It Time to Bring Back Knee Washout?
  • Pediatric to Adult Transition Literature: Scoping Review and Rheumatology Research Prioritization Survey Results
  • Overview of Imaging in Adult- and Childhood-onset Takayasu Arteritis
Show more Review

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • axial spondyloarthritis
  • CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
  • diagnosis

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire