Evaluation of Clinical Diagnosis of Axial Psoriatic Arthritis or Elevated Patient-Reported Spine Pain in CorEvitas' Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry

Objective To determine the presence of axial symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and examine differences between those with or without a diagnosis of axial PsA (axPsA). Methods Patients with PsA at their CorEvitas' (formerly Corrona) Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry enrollment visit were stratified into 4 mutually exclusive groups based on axial manifestations: physician-diagnosed axPsA only (Dx+Sx-), patient-reported elevated spine symptoms only (Dx-Sx+; defined as Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index ≥4 and spine pain visual analog scale ≥40), physician-diagnosed and patient-reported (Dx+Sx+), and no axial manifestations (Dx-Sx-). Patient characteristics, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at enrollment in each axial manifestation group were compared with the Dx-Sx- group. Associations of patient characteristics with the odds of having axial manifestations were estimated using multinomial logistic regression (reference: Dx-Sx-). Results Of 3393 patients included, 226 (6.7%) had Dx+Sx-, 698 (20.6%) had Dx-Sx+, 165 (4.9%) had Dx+Sx+, and 2304 (67.9%) had Dx-Sx-. Patients with Dx-Sx+ or Dx+Sx+ were more frequently women and had a history of depression and fibromyalgia vs patients who had Dx-Sx-. Patients with Dx+Sx- or Dx+Sx+ were more frequently HLA-B27 positive than those with Dx-Sx-. Fibromyalgia was significantly associated with increased odds of Dx+Sx- or Dx+Sx+. Disease activity and PROs were worse in patients with Dx-Sx+ or Dx+Sx+ than in those with Dx-Sx-. Conclusion Patients who had self-reported elevated spine symptoms, with or without physician-diagnosed axPsA, had worse quality of life and higher disease activity overall than patients without axial manifestations, suggesting an unmet need in this patient population.

Central and Peripheral Nervous System

The neuronal, chemical, and electrical transmission of pain is a complex and intricate subject that continues to be studied and expounded. This review discusses the relevant physiology and influential factors contributing to the experience and subjective variation in a variety of acute and chronic pain presentations. This review contains 4 figures, 4 tables, and 30 references Keywords: acute pain, chronic pain, somatic pain, neuropathic pain, visceral pain, nociception, pain perception, gender-related pain, cancer pain, spine pain

A Clinical Prediction Tool for MRI in Emergency Department Patients with Spinal Infection

Introduction: Patients with pyogenic spinal Infection (PSI) are often not diagnosed at their initial presentation, and diagnostic delay is associated with increased morbidity and medical-legal risk. We derived a decision tool to estimate the risk of spinal infection and inform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) decisions. Methods: We conducted a two-part prospective observational cohort study that collected variables from spine pain patients over a six-year derivation phase. We fit a multivariable regression model with logistic coefficients rounded to the nearest integer and used them for variable weighting in the final risk score. This score, SIRCH (spine infection risk calculation heuristic), uses four clinical variables to predict PSI. We calculated the statistical performance, MRI utilization, and model fit in the derivation phase. In the second phase we used the same protocol but enrolled only confirmed cases of spinal infection to assess the sensitivity of our prediction tool. Results: In the derivation phase, we evaluated 134 non-PSI and 40 PSI patients; median age in years was 55.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 38-70 and 51.5 (42-59), respectively. We identified four predictors for our risk score: historical risk factors; fever; progressive neurological deficit; and C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 50 milligrams per liter (mg/L). At a threshold SIRCH score of ≥ 3, the predictive model’s sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were, respectively, as follows: 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 100-100%); 56% (95% CI, 48-64%), and 40% (95% CI, 36-46%). The area under the receiver operator curve was 0.877 (95% CI, 0.829-0.925). The SIRCH score at a threshold of ≥ 3 would prompt significantly fewer MRIs compared to using an elevated CRP (only 99/174 MRIs compared to 144/174 MRIs, P <0.001). In the second phase (49 patient disease-only cohort), the sensitivities of the SIRCH score and CRP use (laboratory standard cut-off 3.5 mg/L) were 92% (95% CI, 84-98%), and 98% (95% CI, 94-100%), respectively. Conclusion: The SIRCH score provides a sensitive estimate of spinal infection risk and prompts fewer MRIs than elevated CRP (cut-off 3.5 mg/L) or clinician suspicion.