[Identification of patients with axial spondylarthritis in primary care (AWARE study)]

[Axial spondyloarthritis : Update on management based on the interdisciplinary S3 guidelines on axial spondyloarthritis including early forms and ankylosing spondylitis]

This review article presents the innovations in the update of the S3 guidelines on axial spondylarthritis. The total of eight new recommendations address the areas of the consideration of differential diagnoses, coordination of comorbidity management, including a vaccination strategy, treatment targets, safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), treatment response to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) and discontinuation strategies when remission has been achieved. In this article the authors deal particularly with the areas of early diagnosis and referral as well as exercise therapy and drug treatment.

A single center experience: physician related diagnostic delay and demographic and clinical differences between patients with ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis

Background. A large number of comparative studies have been conducted for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), including disease burden, treatment modalities and patient characteristics. The aim of this study was to compare physician related diagnostic delay time between patients with AS and nr-axSpA. Methods. In our retrospective study we included 266 patients with axSpA. Patients were classified into two subgroups, AS and nr-axSpA. The time from back pain onset until diagnosis of axSpA was defined as the diagnostic delay. The first specialist referred to and the first diagnosis for each patient was noted in detail. Patient characteristics, clinical manifestations and laboratory and imaging results at diagnosis were also compared between subgroups. Results. The diagnostic delay time was significantly longer for AS patients [6 ± 8.14 years vs 1.62 ± 2.54 years]. 40.9% of all patients were initially consulted by specialists in physical therapy and rehabilitation, followed by 29.7% consulted by a neurosurgeon and 19.9% by a rheumatologist. The most common initial diagnosis was fibromyalgia, 52.6% (140), followed by ankylosing spondylitis, 28.9% (77), and lumbar disc hernia, 12.7% (34). Conclusion. The vast majority of patients were initially evaluated by healthcare providers other than rheumatologists and mostly diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Efforts to increase awareness and to educate first healthcare providers may shorten the diagnostic delay time.

Axial spondyloarthritis 10 years on: still looking for the lost tribe

Despite the publication of various recommendations, quality standards and referral strategies to promote early diagnosis in axial SpA (axSpA) over the last decade, there remains a significant delay to diagnosis, leading to a lost tribe of undiagnosed, untreated patients with persistent back pain and axSpA symptoms. This review discusses the various factors contributing to diagnostic delay in axSpA, while providing recommendations to improve the diagnostic pathway, for example use of the online Spondyloarthritis Diagnosis Evaluation (SPADE) tool (http://www.spadetool.co.uk/). Significant shortcomings exist at both the primary and secondary care level, with healthcare professionals often lacking knowledge and awareness of axSpA. Myths regarding the classical signs and symptoms still prevail, including the perception of axSpA as a male disease, only occurring in individuals who are HLA-B27 positive with raised inflammatory markers. Individuals within this lost tribe of undiagnosed patients are likely lacking adequate treatment and are thereby at risk of worse clinical outcomes. It is therefore vital that public health initiatives are implemented to improve education of healthcare professionals and to ensure early specialist referral, to ultimately improve the lives of patients with axSpA.