Comparison between radiography and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of sacroiliitis in the initial diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis: a cost-effectiveness study

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of our study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of radiography and MRI-based imaging strategies for the initial diagnosis of sacroiliitis in a hypothetical population with suspected axial spondyloarthritis.

Materials and methods

A decision analytic model from the health care system perspective for patients with inflammatory back pain suggestive of axial spondyloarthritis was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of 3 imaging strategies for the sacroiliac joints over a 3-year horizon: radiography, MRI, and radiography followed by MRI. Comprehensive literature search and expert opinion provided input data on cost, probability, and utility estimates. The primary effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with a willingness-to-pay threshold set to $100,000/QALY gained (2018 American dollars).

Results

Radiography was the least costly strategy ($46,220). Radiography followed by MRI was the most effective strategy over a 3-year course (2.64 QALYs). Radiography was the most cost-effective strategy. MRI-based and radiography followed by MRI-based strategies were not found to be cost-effective imaging options for this patient population. Radiography remained the most cost-effective strategy over all willingness-to-pay thresholds up to $100,000.

Conclusion

Radiography is the most cost-effective imaging strategy for the initial diagnosis of sacroiliitis in patients with inflammatory back pain suspicious for axial spondyloarthritis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Gorelik N, Tamizuddin F, Rodrigues TC, Beltran L, Malik F, Reddy S, et al. Comparison between radiography and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of sacroiliitis in the initial diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis: a cost-effectiveness study. Annual Meeting Abstracts of the Society of Skeletal Radiology (SSR) 2019, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. Skeletal Radiology. 2019; 48(3):490.

  2. 2.

    Strand V, Rao SA, Shillington AC, Cifaldi MA, McGuire M, Ruderman EM. Prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis in United States rheumatology practices: Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society criteria versus rheumatology expert clinical diagnosis. Arthritis Care Res. 2013;65(8):1299–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    van der Heijde D, Ramiro S, Landewé R, Baraliakos X, Van den Bosch F, Sepriano A, et al. 2016 update of the ASAS-EULAR management recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(6):978–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Taurog JD, Chhabra A, Colbert RA. Ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(26):2563–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rudwaleit M, van der Heijde D, Landewé R, Listing J, Akkoc N, Brandt J, 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(6):777–83.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bernard SA, Kransdorf MJ, Beaman FD, Adler RS, Amini B, Appel M, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria chronic back pain suspected sacroiliitis-spondyloarthropathy. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(5S):S62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Mandl P, Navarro-Compán V, Terslev L, Aegerter P, van der Heijde D, D'Agostino MA, et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in the diagnosis and management of spondyloarthritis in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(7):1327–39.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Sudoł-Szopińska I, Kwiatkowska B, Włodkowska-Korytkowska M, Matuszewska G, Grochowska E. Diagnostics of sacroiliitis according to ASAS criteria: a comparative evaluation of conventional radiographs and MRI in patients with a clinical suspicion of spondyloarthropathy. Preliminary Results. Pol J Radiol. 2015;80:266–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Christiansen AA, Hendricks O, Kuettel D, Hørslev-Petersen K, Jurik AG, Nielsen S, et al. Limited reliability of radiographic assessment of sacroiliac joints in patients with suspected early spondyloarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2017;44(1):70–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lambert RG, Bakker PA, van der Heijde D, Weber U, Rudwaleit M, Hermann KG, et al. Defining active sacroiliitis on MRI for classification of axial spondyloarthritis: update by the ASAS MRI working group. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(11):1958–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Weber U, Lambert RG, Østergaard M, Hodler J, Pedersen SJ, Maksymowych WP. The diagnostic utility of magnetic resonance imaging in spondylarthritis: an international multicenter evaluation of one hundred eighty-seven subjects. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(10):3048–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    van Tubergen A, Heuft-Dorenbosch L, Schulpen G, Landewé R, Wijers R, van der Heijde D, et al. Radiographic assessment of sacroiliitis by radiologists and rheumatologists: does training improve quality? Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62(6):519–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Taylor HG, Wardle T, Beswick EJ, Dawes PT. The relationship of clinical and laboratory measurements to radiological change in ankylosing spondylitis. Br J Rheumatol. 1991;30(5):330–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    van den Berg R, Lenczner G, Feydy A, van der Heijde D, Reijnierse M, Saraux A, et al. Agreement between clinical practice and trained central reading in reading of sacroiliac joints on plain pelvic radiographs. Results from the DESIR cohort. Arthritis Rheum. 2014;66(9):2403–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Jans L, Coeman L, Van Praet L, Carron P, Elewaut D, Van den Bosch F, et al. How sensitive and specific are MRI features of sacroiliitis for diagnosis of spondyloarthritis in patients with inflammatory back pain? JBR-BTR. 2014;97(4):202–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Weber U, Østergaard M, Lambert RG, Pedersen SJ, Chan SM, Zubler V, et al. Candidate lesion-based criteria for defining a positive sacroiliac joint MRI in two cohorts of patients with axial spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(11):1976–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Melchior J, Azraq Y, Chary-Valckenaere I, Rat AC, Reignac M, Texeira P, et al. Radiography, abdominal CT and MRI compared with sacroiliac joint CT in diagnosis of structural sacroiliitis. Eur J Radiol. 2017;95:169–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Deodhar A, Mease PJ, Reveille JD, Curtis JR, Chen S, Malhotra K, et al. Frequency of axial spondyloarthritis diagnosis among patients seen by US rheumatologists for evaluation of chronic back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2016;68(7):1669–76.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Brandt HC, Spiller I, Song IH, Vahldiek JL, Rudwaleit M, Sieper J. Performance of referral recommendations in patients with chronic back pain and suspected axial spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(11):1479–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Baraliakos X, Kiltz U, Peters S, Appel H, Dybowski F, Igelmann M, et al. Efficiency of treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs according to current recommendations in patients with radiographic and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56(1):95–102.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Coats TL, Borenstein DG, Nangia NK, Brown MT. Effects of valdecoxib in the treatment of chronic low back pain: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Clin Ther. 2004;26(8):1249–60.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Katz N, Borenstein DG, Birbara C, Bramson C, Nemeth MA, Smith MD, et al. Efficacy and safety of tanezumab in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Pain. 2011;152(10):2248–58.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Maxwell LJ, Zochling J, Boonen A, Singh JA, Veras MM, Tanjong Ghogomu E, et al. TNF-alpha inhibitors for ankylosing spondylitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4:CD005468.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lie E, van der Heijde D, Uhlig T, Mikkelsen K, Rødevand E, Koldingsnes W, et al. Effectiveness of switching between TNF inhibitors in ankylosing spondylitis: data from the NOR-DMARD register. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(1):157–63.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Deodhar A, Poddubnyy D, Pacheco-Tena C, Salvarani C, Lespessailles E, Rahman P, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Ixekizumab in the Treatment of Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis: Sixteen-Week Results From a Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Patients With Prior Inadequate Response to or Intolerance of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71(4):599–611.

  26. 26.

    Enthoven WT, Roelofs PD, Deyo RA, van Tulder MW, Koes BW. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD012087.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Tong Q, Cai Q, de Mooij T, Xu X, Dai S, Qu W, et al. Adverse events of anti-tumor necrosis factor α therapy in ankylosing spondylitis. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0119897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Dougados M, van der Heijde D, Sieper J, Braun J, Maksymowych WP, Citera G, et al. Symptomatic efficacy of etanercept and its effects on objective signs of inflammation in early nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2014;66(8):2091–102.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Sieper J, van der Heijde D, Dougados M, Mease PJ, Maksymowych WP, Brown MA, 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(6):815–22.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bao C, Huang F, Khan MA, Fei K, Wu Z, Han C, et al. Safety and efficacy of golimumab in Chinese patients with active ankylosing spondylitis: 1-year results of a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2014;53(9):1654–63.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26(4):410–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hanmer J, Lawrence WF, Anderson JP, Kaplan RM, Fryback DG. Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26(4):391–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Physician fee schedule search. www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-criteria.aspx. Accessed 12 Dec 2018.

  34. 34.

    GoodRx. www.goodrx.com. Accessed December 12, 2018.

  35. 35.

    Sung S, Kim HS, Kwon JW. MRI assessment of sacroiliitis for the diagnosis of axial spondyloarthropathy: comparison of fat-saturated T2, STIR and contrast-enhanced sequences. Br J Radiol. 2017;90(1078):20170090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Heuft-Dorenbosch L, Weijers R, Landewé R, van der Linden S, van der Heijde D. Magnetic resonance imaging changes of sacroiliac joints in patients with recent-onset inflammatory back pain: inter-reader reliability and prevalence of abnormalities. Arthritis Res Ther. 2006;8(1):R11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Benbassat J, Baumal R. The time horizons of formal decision analyses. QJM. 2007;100(6):383–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalia Gorelik.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author #5 declares a financial relationship with the Pfizer Psoriatic Arthritis Advisory Panel, outside the submitted work.

Author #6 declares a financial relationship with Abbvie (clinical trials, consulting fees), Amgen (clinical trials, consulting fees), UCB (consulting fees), Pfizer (clinical trials, consulting fees), Novartis (clinical trials, consulting fees), and Celgene (clinical trials), outside the submitted work.

The other authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study did not require Institutional Review Board review as it does not constitute human subjects research.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gorelik, N., Tamizuddin, F., Rodrigues, T.C. et al. Comparison between radiography and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of sacroiliitis in the initial diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis: a cost-effectiveness study. Skeletal Radiol 49, 1581–1588 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03444-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Sacroiliitis
  • Axial spondyloarthritis
  • Radiography
  • Magnetic resonance imaging