Radiographic and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis are not routinely distinguished in everyday clinical care: an analysis of real-world data from rheumatology practices.

The categorization of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) into radiographic (r-axSpA) and non-radiographic (nr-axSpA) subtypes is important in clinical trials but may be of less value in clinical practice. This exploratory cross-sectional, multi-center study evaluated patients with axSpA under routine care at German clinical rheumatology sites (RHADAR real-world database), with a focus on imaging data used for diagnostic classifications. Our analyses included 371 patients with axSpA. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 50.9 (14.0) years, disease duration was 16.4 (13.5) years, and 39.6% were female. Based on the rheumatologist's final assessment, almost half of patients had definite r-axSpA (n = 179; 48.2%), 53 (14.3%) had suspected r-axSpA, 112 (30.2%) had non-radiographic-axSpA (nr-axSpA), and 27 (7.3%) had undefined axSpA. Patients assessed with definite or suspected r-axSpA were more likely to be treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (62.0% and 64.2%, respectively) compared with nr-axSpA or undefined axSpA patients (37.5% and 48.1%, respectively). Almost all patients (348/371; 93.8%) had sacroiliac joint imaging data (radiographs or magnetic resonance imaging) documented in their charts, but only 216 (58.2%) had conventional radiographs required for formal diagnosis of r-axSpA by modified New York criteria. Follow-up radiographic imaging in nr-axSpA patients was uncommon (23/216 [25.0%]) but confirmed r-axSpA in 9/23 patients (39.1%). In conclusion, radiographs were available for slightly more than half of axSpA patients. Follow-up imaging was infrequent during rheumatology care in Germany but confirmed r-axSpA in ~ 40% of patients originally considered to have nr-axSpA. The distinction between r-axSpA and nr-axSpA may be ill-defined in routine clinical practice.