Search

Abstract Introduction This study aimed to investigate the current practice in the diagnosis and treatment of SAPHO syndrome among the international rheumatology and dermatology communities. Methods We conducted an electronic survey among the members of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), the Japan Spondyloarthritis, and Israeli Societies of Rheumatology. Results A total of 78 physicians participated in the survey: rheumatologists (83%, n = 65), dermatologists (11.5%, n = 9), and orthopedics (3.8%, n = 3). SAPHO was considered a subtype of spondyloarthritis by 48.7% (n = 38), a subtype of psoriatic arthritis by 19.2% (n = 15), a separate entity by 25.6% (n = 20), and a subtype of reactive arthritis by 6.4% (n = 5). Palmoplantar pustulosis was the most prevalent cutaneous manifestation (n = 44, 56.4%) and anterior chest pain—the most prevalent osteoarticular manifestation (n = 66, 84.6%). The majority (84.6%, n = 66) voted for the update of the present diagnostic criteria by Khan 1994. Magnetic resonance imaging was considered the preferred imaging modality for the diagnosis of SAPHO by 41% (n = 32). Conduction of bone biopsy for diagnosis of non-infectious osteitis was supported only by 10.3% (n = 8). Patient-reported outcomes were considered the most appropriate measure for the assessment of disease activity by 47.4% (n = 37). The treatment approach was overall similar among the rheumatology and dermatology communities, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, bisphosphonates, conventional disease-modifying anti-inflammatory drugs, and biologics. Conclusions Our study underlines the controversy on diagnosis and treatment of SAPHO syndrome among specialists in rheumatology and dermatology and emphasizes an unmet need for update and validation of diagnostic criteria and treatment approach.

Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the current practice in the diagnosis and treatment of SAPHO syndrome among the international rheumatology and dermatology communities. Methods: We conducted an electronic survey among the members of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), the Japan Spondyloarthritis, and Israeli Societies of Rheumatology. Results: A total of 78 physicians participated in the survey: rheumatologists (83%, n = 65), dermatologists (11.5%, n = 9), and orthopedics (3.8%, n = 3). SAPHO was considered a subtype of spondyloarthritis by 48.7% (n = 38), a subtype of psoriatic arthritis by 19.2% (n = 15), a separate entity by 25.6% (n = 20), and a subtype of reactive arthritis by 6.4% (n = 5). Palmoplantar pustulosis was the most prevalent cutaneous manifestation (n = 44, 56.4%) and anterior chest pain—the most prevalent osteoarticular manifestation (n = 66, 84.6%). The majority (84.6%, n = 66) voted for the update of the present diagnostic criteria by Khan 1994. Magnetic resonance imaging was considered the preferred imaging modality for the diagnosis of SAPHO by 41% (n = 32). Conduction of bone biopsy for diagnosis of non-infectious osteitis was supported only by 10.3% (n = 8). Patient-reported outcomes were considered the most appropriate measure for the assessment of disease activity by 47.4% (n = 37). The treatment approach was overall similar among the rheumatology and dermatology communities, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, bisphosphonates, conventional disease-modifying anti-inflammatory drugs, and biologics. Conclusions: Our study underlines the controversy on diagnosis and treatment of SAPHO syndrome among specialists in rheumatology and dermatology and emphasizes an unmet need for update and validation of diagnostic criteria and treatment approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]