Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec;7(4):883-891.
doi: 10.1007/s40744-020-00235-2. Epub 2020 Sep 24.

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Adult Patients with SAPHO Syndrome: Controversies Revealed in a Multidisciplinary International Survey of Physicians

Victoria Furer  1 , Mitsumasa Kishimoto  2 , Shigeyoshi Tsuji  3 , Yoshinori Taniguchi  4 , Yoko Ishihara  5 , Tetsuya Tomita  6 , Philip S Helliwell  7 , Ori Elkayam  8
Affiliations

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Adult Patients with SAPHO Syndrome: Controversies Revealed in a Multidisciplinary International Survey of Physicians

Victoria Furer et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2020 Dec.

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.

Keywords: Diagnosis; Psoriatic arthritis; SAPHO; Spondyloarthritis; Survey SAPHO syndrome; Treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Chamot AM, Benhamou CL, Kahn MF, Beraneck L, Kaplan G, Prost A. Acne-pustulosis-hyperostosis-osteitis syndrome. Results of a national survey 85 cases. Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic. 1987;54(3):187–196. - PubMed
    1. Rukavina I. SAPHO syndrome: a review. J Child Orthop. 2015;9(1):19–27. doi: 10.1007/s11832-014-0627-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Firinu D, Garcia-Larsen V, Manconi PE, Del Giacco SR. SAPHO syndrome: current developments and approaches to clinical treatment. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2016;18(6):35. doi: 10.1007/s11926-016-0583-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Colina M, Govoni M, Orzincolo C, Trotta F. Clinical and radiologic evolution of synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, and osteitis syndrome: a single-center study of a cohort of 71 subjects. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(6):813–821. doi: 10.1002/art.24540. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jurik AG, Klicman RF, Simoni P, Robinson P, Teh J. SAPHO and CRMO: the value of imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2018;22(2):207–224. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1639469. - DOI - PubMed