Development and validation of an OMERACT ultrasound scoring system for the extent of calcium pyrophosphate crystal deposition at the joint level and patient level

Updates in Ultrasound in Rheumatology

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the authors' narrative review was to outline the current literature regarding the use of ultrasound in main rheumatic disorders and summarize the updates, specifically about rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and crystal-induced arthropathies.

METHODS

The authors searched on PubMed for articles discussing the major updates regarding the role of ultrasound in the previously mentioned rheumatic conditions.

RESULTS

The authors have provided the updated definitions, new criteria, and diagnostic scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In rheumatology's dynamic landscape, this review provides valuable insights for researchers and clinicians on ultrasound's role in improving patient care and outcomes in rheumatic diseases.

Diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate crystal deposition disease by ultrasonography: how many and which sites should be scanned?

OBJECTIVE

To develop the optimal US scanning protocol for the diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate crystal deposition (CPPD) disease.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, consecutive patients with a crystal-proven diagnosis of CPPD disease, and age-, sex-matched disease controls with a negative synovial fluid analysis were prospectively enrolled in two Italian Institutions. Four rheumatologists, blinded to patients' clinical details, performed US examinations using a standardized scanning protocol including 20 joints (shoulders, elbows, wrists, metacarpophalangeal joints from second to fifth fingers, hips, knees, ankles). CPPD was identified as presence/absence, according to the OMERACT definitions. Reduced US scanning protocols were developed by selecting the most informative joints to be imaged by US using the LASSO technique. Patients were randomly divided into training and validation sets. Their diagnostic accuracy was tested comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

The number of participants enrolled was 204: 102 with CPPD disease and 102 disease controls [age, mean (s.d.): 71.3 (12.0) vs 71.1 (13.5) years; female: 62.8% vs 57.8%]. The median number of joints with US evidence of CPPD was 5 [interquartile range (IQR): 4-7] and 0 (IQR: 0-1) in patients with CPPD disease and controls, respectively (P < 0.01). The detection of CPPD in ≥2 joints using a reduced scanning protocol (bilateral assessment of knees, wrists and hips) showed a sensitivity of 96.7% (95% CI: 82.8, 99.9) and a specificity of 100 (95% CI: 88.8, 100.0) for the diagnosis of CPPD disease and had good feasibility [mean (s.d.): 12.5 (5.3) min].

CONCLUSION

Bilateral US assessment of knees, wrists and hips had excellent accuracy and good feasibility for the diagnosis of CPPD disease.

Calcium Pyrophosphate Crystal Formation and Deposition: Where Do we Stand and What Does the Future hold?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Although calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) has been known since the 1960s, our understanding of its pathogenesis remains rudimentary. This review aims to illustrate the known mechanisms underlying calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal formation and deposition and explore future directions in research. By examining various perspectives, from basic research to clinical and imaging assessments, as well as new emerging methodologies, we can establish a starting point for a deeper understanding of CPPD pathogenesis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent years have seen significant advances in CPPD research, particularly in the clinical field with the development of the 2023 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for CPPD disease, and in imaging with the introduction of the OMERACT ultrasonographic definitions and scoring system. However, progress in basic research has been slower. New laboratory approaches, such as Raman spectroscopy and omics sciences, offer promising insights that may help piece together the puzzle of CPPD. CPPD is a common yet understudied condition. As the population ages and CPPD becomes more prevalent, there is an urgent need to better understand the disease and the mechanisms involved in crystal formation and deposition, in order to improve diagnosis and therapeutic approaches.

Calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease

Calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease is a consequence of the immune response to the pathological presence of calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystals inside joints, which causes acute or chronic inflammatory arthritis. CPPD is strongly associated with cartilage degradation and osteoarthritis, although the direction of causality is unclear. This clinical presentation is called CPPD with osteoarthritis. Although direct evidence is scarce, CPPD disease might be the most common cause of inflammatory arthritis in older people (aged >60 years). CPPD is caused by elevated extracellular-pyrophosphate concentrations in the cartilage and causes inflammation by activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. Common risk factors for CPPD disease include ageing and previous joint injury. It is uncommonly associated with metabolic conditions (eg, hyperparathyroidism, haemochromatosis, hypomagnesaemia, and hypophosphatasia) and genetic variants (eg, in the ANKH and osteoprotegerin genes). Apart from the detection of CPP crystals in synovial fluid, imaging evidence of CPPD in joints by mainly conventional radiography, and increasingly ultrasonography, has a central role in the diagnosis of CPPD disease. CT is useful in showing calcification in axial joints such as in patients with crowned dens syndrome. To date, no treatment is effective in dissolving CPP crystals, which explains why control of inflammation is currently the main focus of therapeutic strategies. Prednisone might provide the best benefit-risk ratio for the treatment of acute CPP-crystal arthritis, but low-dose colchicine is also effective with a risk of mild diarrhoea. Limited evidence suggests that colchicine, low-dose weekly methotrexate, and hydroxychloroquine might be effective in the prophylaxis of recurrent flares and in the management of persistent CPP-crystal inflammatory arthritis. Additionally, biologics inhibiting IL-1 and IL-6 might have a role in the management of refractory disease.

Describing calcium pyrophosphate deposition: undoing the tower of Babel!

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In 1977, McCarty astutely observed, 'The variety of names suggested for the condition associated with deposits of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate crystals is exceeded only by the variations of its clinical presentation'. Fast forward to 2024, a standardized nomenclature for calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) is still lacking. This review aims to delineate the challenges in characterizing CPPD through nomenclature and imaging.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the effort of nomenclature standardization in 2011 by the EULAR, confusion persists in the literature and clinical practice, with pseudo-forms and obscure abbreviations. The Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network (G-CAN) has launched a project to redefine CPPD nomenclature and formulate a user-friendly language for effective communication with patients and other stakeholders. Additionally, recent advancements in imaging, have shed light on various aspects of the disorder.

SUMMARY

Almost 60 years from the first description of a clinical manifestation related to calcium pyrophosphate crystals, a common language describing the disorder is still lacking. A redefined CPPD nomenclature, together with lay-friendly terminology, would significantly contribute to the uniformity of CPPD research, enhance public understanding and awareness and improve doctor-patient communication and therefore disease outcomes. Imaging can provide deep insights into CPPD elements, promoting comprehension of this disorder.

Calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease: historical overview and potential gaps

CPPD disease can affect patients’ quality of life through its various clinical presentations. This mini-review discusses the evolution of CPPD from its discovery to current knowledge of its pathogenesis, genetic associations, diagnostics, and treatment options. Despite extensive research, the exact mechanisms of CPPD are not well understood, and there is a notable lack of knowledge about psychosocial impacts and patient experiences. This study aims to present a CPPD Disease Timeline identifying gaps in current knowledge and potential directions for future research. These findings contribute to a broader understanding of CPPD disease and emphasize the importance of continued research and innovation in this field.

Ultrasound reveals a high prevalence of CPPD in consecutive patients with knee pain

The objective of this study is to estimate the prevalence of US findings indicative of calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) in patients with knee pain. Consecutive patients with knee pain, equally distributed among males and females in seven different age-decades (21-90 years), were enrolled in a cross-sectional study. The presence of US OMERACT-defined CPPD (medial and lateral menisci and femoral hyaline cartilage) and osteophytes (medial and lateral compartments of the tibiofemoral joint) was scored as presence/absence in both knees. Four hundred twenty participants were enrolled (210 men/210 women). Fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage CPPDs were detected by US in 94/420 (22.4%) and 41/420 (9.8%) participants, respectively. No significant sex differences were noted. The prevalence and the extent of CPPD increased with age. Fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage CPPDs were identified in 0/60 participants in the third decade, and in 28/60 (46.7%) and 14/60 (23.3%) participants in the ninth decade, respectively (p for trend < 0.01). While fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage CPPD is virtually absent in subjects younger than 40 and 50 years old, their prevalence steeply increases above from these age groups. Age (aIRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05), osteophyte score (aIRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.22-1.60), and hyaline cartilage CPPD score (aIRR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.06-3.49) were associated with fibrocartilage CPPD score, whereas age (aIRR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05) and fibrocartilage CPPD score (aIRR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.29-3.72) were associated with hyaline cartilage CPPD score in multivariable negative binomial regression analyses. In conclusion, we report the US prevalence of CPPD in patients with knee pain. Fibrocartilage CPPD occurs at a younger age and is more prevalent than hyaline cartilage CPPD. Key points • Fibrocartilage CPPD occurs at a younger age and is more prevalent than hyaline cartilage CPPD. • Fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage CPPDs are virtually absent in subjects younger than 40 and 50 years old. • In subjects older than 80 years, fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage CPPD prevalence rises up to 46.7% and 23.3%, respectively.