Development and validation of an OMERACT ultrasound scoring system for the extent of calcium pyrophosphate crystal deposition at the joint level and patient level

Describing calcium pyrophosphate deposition: undoing the tower of Babel!

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In 1977, McCarty astutely observed, 'The variety of names suggested for the condition associated with deposits of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate crystals is exceeded only by the variations of its clinical presentation'. Fast forward to 2024, a standardized nomenclature for calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) is still lacking. This review aims to delineate the challenges in characterizing CPPD through nomenclature and imaging.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the effort of nomenclature standardization in 2011 by the EULAR, confusion persists in the literature and clinical practice, with pseudo-forms and obscure abbreviations. The Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network (G-CAN) has launched a project to redefine CPPD nomenclature and formulate a user-friendly language for effective communication with patients and other stakeholders. Additionally, recent advancements in imaging, have shed light on various aspects of the disorder.

SUMMARY

Almost 60 years from the first description of a clinical manifestation related to calcium pyrophosphate crystals, a common language describing the disorder is still lacking. A redefined CPPD nomenclature, together with lay-friendly terminology, would significantly contribute to the uniformity of CPPD research, enhance public understanding and awareness and improve doctor-patient communication and therefore disease outcomes. Imaging can provide deep insights into CPPD elements, promoting comprehension of this disorder.

Calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease: historical overview and potential gaps

CPPD disease can affect patients’ quality of life through its various clinical presentations. This mini-review discusses the evolution of CPPD from its discovery to current knowledge of its pathogenesis, genetic associations, diagnostics, and treatment options. Despite extensive research, the exact mechanisms of CPPD are not well understood, and there is a notable lack of knowledge about psychosocial impacts and patient experiences. This study aims to present a CPPD Disease Timeline identifying gaps in current knowledge and potential directions for future research. These findings contribute to a broader understanding of CPPD disease and emphasize the importance of continued research and innovation in this field.

Ultrasound reveals a high prevalence of CPPD in consecutive patients with knee pain

The objective of this study is to estimate the prevalence of US findings indicative of calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) in patients with knee pain. Consecutive patients with knee pain, equally distributed among males and females in seven different age-decades (21-90 years), were enrolled in a cross-sectional study. The presence of US OMERACT-defined CPPD (medial and lateral menisci and femoral hyaline cartilage) and osteophytes (medial and lateral compartments of the tibiofemoral joint) was scored as presence/absence in both knees. Four hundred twenty participants were enrolled (210 men/210 women). Fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage CPPDs were detected by US in 94/420 (22.4%) and 41/420 (9.8%) participants, respectively. No significant sex differences were noted. The prevalence and the extent of CPPD increased with age. Fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage CPPDs were identified in 0/60 participants in the third decade, and in 28/60 (46.7%) and 14/60 (23.3%) participants in the ninth decade, respectively (p for trend < 0.01). While fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage CPPD is virtually absent in subjects younger than 40 and 50 years old, their prevalence steeply increases above from these age groups. Age (aIRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05), osteophyte score (aIRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.22-1.60), and hyaline cartilage CPPD score (aIRR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.06-3.49) were associated with fibrocartilage CPPD score, whereas age (aIRR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05) and fibrocartilage CPPD score (aIRR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.29-3.72) were associated with hyaline cartilage CPPD score in multivariable negative binomial regression analyses. In conclusion, we report the US prevalence of CPPD in patients with knee pain. Fibrocartilage CPPD occurs at a younger age and is more prevalent than hyaline cartilage CPPD. Key points • Fibrocartilage CPPD occurs at a younger age and is more prevalent than hyaline cartilage CPPD. • Fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage CPPDs are virtually absent in subjects younger than 40 and 50 years old. • In subjects older than 80 years, fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage CPPD prevalence rises up to 46.7% and 23.3%, respectively.