Criteria for the Diagnosis of Raynaud’s Phenomenon – Do They Recognize the Same Patients?

Martina Plešivčnik-Novljan¹, Daša Šuput Skvarča¹, Ajda Jezernik¹, Saša Čučnik¹, Žiga Rotar¹ and Alojzija Hocevar², ¹University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia, ²University Medical Center, Rheumatology, Ljubljana, LJUBLJANA, Slovenia

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2020

Keywords: Raynaud's

Session Information

Date: Saturday, November 7, 2020

Title: Systemic Sclerosis & Related Disorders – Clinical Poster II

Session Type: Poster Session B

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Different criteria aiding the diagnosis of Raynaud’s phenomenon (RP) have been proposed. Wigley’s “RP criteria 2002”, defined RP by history of cold sensitivity, accompanied by pallor and/or cyanosis, and a 3-item questionnaire¹. International Consensus Criteria proposed criteria (“RP criteria 2014”) take a three-step conditional approach (i.e. a screening question, assessment of colour changes and a disease score calculation². As the latter criteria seem more stringent for RP, we aimed to compare the agreement between the two criteria sets and their correlation with nailfold capillaroscopy (NFC) findings and results of immunoserological tests.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed between January 2018 and December 2019 at our secondary/tertiary rheumatology centre. Both RP criteria questionnaires were applied by the rheumatologist to all patients and the same day the NFC was done. The agreement between the criteria was determined by the Cohen κ-test. The correlation between the two criteria sets, NFC and immunoserological tests (antinuclear antibodies and scleroderma specific antibodies) was calculated with the Pearson correlation test.

Results: We included 565 consecutive patients referred for NFC (84.1% female, median age (IQR) 51.1 (40.1–61.6) years). “RP criteria 2002” and “RP criteria 2014” were fulfilled in 485/565 (85.8%) and 248/565 (43.9%) patients, respectively. The κ-coefficient of agreement between the criteria was 0.22 (95% CI 0.11-0.26). Table 1 shows the correlations between RP criteria and results of NFC and immunoserology.

Conclusion: We found a low level of agreement between the two criteria sets. “RP criteria 2014” correlated better than “RP criteria 2002” with scleroderma specific immunoserology and the scleroderma pattern at NFC, albeit the correlation was low for both criteria.

Legend: * Pearson correlation coefficient (95%CI) and p value; ANA antinuclear antibody; Ab antibody; ENA extractable nuclear antigen; $ ACmA or anti-Scl70; # any type of pathological result; NFC nailfold capillaroscopy;

Disclosure: M. Plešivčnik-Novljan, None; D. Šuput Skvarča, None; A. Jezernik, None; S. Čučnik, None; �. Rotar, None; A. Hocevar, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Plešivčnik-Novljan M, Šuput Skvarča D, Jezernik A, Čučnik S, Rotar �, Hocevar A. Criteria for the Diagnosis of Raynaud’s Phenomenon – Do They Recognize the Same Patients? [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020; 72 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/criteria-for-the-diagnosis-of-raynauds-phenomenon-do-they-recognize-the-same-patients/. Accessed .

« Back to ACR Convergence 2020

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/criteria-for-the-diagnosis-of-raynauds-phenomenon-do-they-recognize-the-same-patients/