FRI0302 WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN CENTRAL AND LOCAL READERS IN EVALUATION OF MRI SCANS ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS? DATA FROM THE ASAS CLASSIFICATION COHORT STUDY
Authors: W. P. Maksymowych, S. Juhl Pedersen, U. Weber, P. M. Machado, X. Baraliakos, J. Sieper, S. Wichuk, D. Poddubnyy, M. Rudwaleit, D. Van der Heijde, R. B. M. Landewé, J. Paschke, M. Ǿstergaard, R. G. Lambert
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2020)

Background: Active MRI lesions typical of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were reported in 61.6% and 2.2% of axSpA and not-axSpA patients, respectively, from the ASAS classification cohort (ASAS-CC) 1 . Discrepancy between local and central reader evaluation of MRI scans could result in differences in numbers of patients fulfilling the imaging arm of the ASAS classification criteria. But final classification may not be impacted if discrepant patients still fulfill the clinical arm. Objectives: We aimed to assess the impact of reader discrepancy in detection of active MRI lesions on the number of patients classified as having axSpA in patients recruited to the ASAS-CC. Methods: MRI images of the sacroiliac joints (SIJs) were available from 252 cases in the ASAS-CC, and these also had clinical and radiographic data. Seven central readers from the ASAS-MRI group recorded MRI lesions in an eCRF that included active lesions typical of axSpA in the SIJ (MRI-active) that was worded exactly the same as in the original ASAS-CC eCRF permitting comparisons between central and local site readers. Active lesions were deemed to be present according to majority agreement (≥4/7) of central readers and also any 2 central readers. We calculated the number of patients that were classified differently after central evaluation for overall fulfilment of the ASAS criteria and for the imaging arm. Results: Discordance between central and local readers for detection of MRI-active was recorded in 45(17.8%) and 47(18.2%) of cases according to 2-reader and majority (≥4/7) central reader data, respectively (kappa (95%CI) of 0.64 (0.54-0.73) and 0.62 (0.53-0.72). With central reading as external standard the false-positive rate for active lesions was 26.9%% and 32.2% (‘local overcall’) for 2-reader and majority reader data, respectively. There were 159(63.1%) patients who fulfilled the ASAS axSpA criteria based on local-reading, and 148(58.7%) and 143(56.7%) patients based on 2-reader and majority central-reading, respectively (Table). When fulfillment of the imaging arm was the primary consideration (irrespective of the clinical arm), 126 (50%) patients fulfilled the criteria based on local-reading, and 111 (44%) and 102 (40.5%) patients based on 2-reader and majority central-reading, respectively. Conclusion: Despite substantial overcall for positive MRI SIJ inflammation by local readers, the number of patients classified as having axSpA did not change substantially. This is due to the alternate mechanism for classification through the clinical arm. References: [1]Rudwaleit et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68: 777-83 Impact of Central Vs. Local Reader SIJ MRI Inflammation Assessment on SpA Classification in cases with all clinical, radiographic, and central and local MRI inflammation data available (n=252) MRI assessment used SpA Classification = Yes N(%) SpA Classification = No N(%) Imaging Arm SpA Classification = Yes N(%) Imaging Arm SpA Classification = No N(%) Local Reader MRI positive 159 (63.1%) 93 (36.9%) 126 (50%) 126 (50%) &gt;2 Central Reader MRI positive 148 (58.7%) 104 (41.3%) 111 (44.0%) 141 (56.0%) Majority Central Reader (≥4/7) MRI positive 143 (56.7%) 109 (43.2%) 102 (40.5%) 150 (59.5%) Disclosure 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, Susanne Juhl Pedersen Grant/research support from: Novartis, Ulrich Weber: 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, 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, 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 &amp; Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Joel Paschke: 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, Robert G Lambert: None declared