Maintenance of biologic-free remission with naproxen or no treatment in patients with early, active axial spondyloarthritis: results from a 6-month, randomised, open-label follow-up study, INFAST Part 2

ASAS consensus definition of early axial spondyloarthritis

OBJECTIVES

To develop a consensual definition for the term 'early axial spondyloarthritis-axSpA'-and 'early peripheral spondyloarthritis-pSpA'.

METHODS

The ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-Spondyloarthritis EARly definition) steering committee convened an international working group (WG). Five consecutive steps were followed: (1) systematic literature review (SLR); (2) discussion of SLR results within the WG and ASAS community; (3) a three-round Delphi survey inviting all ASAS members to select the items that should be considered for the definition; (4) presentation of Delphi results to the WG and ASAS community and (5) ASAS voting and endorsement (2023 annual meeting).

RESULTS

Following the SLR, consensus was to proceed with an expert-based definition for early axSpA (81% in favour) but not for pSpA (54% against). Importantly, early axSpA should be based on symptom duration taking solely axial symptoms into account. 151-164 ASAS members participated in the Delphi surveys. Consensus was achieved for considering the following items within early axSpA definition: duration of symptoms ≤2 years; axial symptoms defined as cervical/thoracic/back/buttock pain or morning stiffness; regardless of the presence/absence of radiographic damage. The WG agreed that in patients with a diagnosis of axSpA 'early axSpA' should be defined as a duration of ≤2 years of axial symptoms. Axial symptoms should include spinal/buttock pain or morning stiffness and should be considered by a rheumatologist as related to axSpA. The ASAS community endorsed this proposal (88% in favour).

CONCLUSIONS

Early axSpA has newly been defined, based on expert consensus. This ASAS definition should be adopted in research studies addressing early axSpA.

Tapering or discontinuation of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in axial spondyloarthritis: A review of the literature and discussion on current practice

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have taken up an important role in the management of axial spondyloarthritis. Once stable remission or low disease activity has been achieved with bDMARDs, it may be possible to maintain this state with lower levels of these drugs. Studies consistently demonstrate that tapering of tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFi) is not inferior to full-dose continuation in terms of maintaining treatment response, while data for tapering of interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) is lacking. Complete discontinuation of TNFi and IL-17i, however, often results in relapse and should not be recommended at this moment. Clear safety benefits of tapering or discontinuation have not been shown, although studies were typically not designed to address this. Current evidence does not support specific tapering or discontinuation strategies, although stepwise disease activity-guided regimens do allow for a more personalized approach and might be preferred. The definition of what constitutes an appropriate disease state to initiate tapering or discontinuation is unclear, and requires further study. Also, reliable predictors of successful tapering and discontinuation have not yet been identified. Fortunately, if tapering or discontinuation fails, most patients are able to regain disease control when reverted to the original bDMARD regimen. Finally, most patients indicate that, when asked, they would be willing to try tapering if the rationale is clear and if it is in their best interests. The decision to taper or discontinue should be made through shared decision-making, as this could improve the likelihood of success.

A glance into the future of diagnosis and treatment of spondyloarthritis

The last two decades have seen major developments in the field of spondyloarthritis (SpA), but there are still important unmet needs to address. In the future, we envisage important advances in the diagnosis and treatment of SpA. In the diagnosis of SpA, the use of online and social media tools will increase awareness of the disease and facilitate the referral of patients to rheumatology clinics. In addition, more specific diagnostic tests will be available, especially advanced imaging methods and new biomarkers. This will allow most patients to be diagnosed at an early stage of the disease. In the treatment of SpA, an increasing number of novel treatment targets can be expected, most of which will be directed against intracellular enzymes. We hope to see more strategy trials shaping treatment pathways in SpA and accommodating principals of precision medicine. Approved treatment options will be available for both axial and peripheral SpA. We also hope to intervene not only at the inflammation level but also at the level of underlying immunological processes that might be associated with a higher probability of long-standing remission if not a cure. Finally, artificial intelligence techniques will allow for the analysis of large-scale data to answer relevant research questions for the diagnosis and management of patients with SpA.

Twenty years of clinical trials in axial spondyloarthritis: what can we learn for the future?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We have now about 20 years of experience with the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis with biologics, which raises the question what we can learn from past experience, and which open questions should be addressed in future investigations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many studies have shown that axSpA patients - both patients in their nonradiological and radiological stage - respond similarly well to biologic treatment and these patients should be seen as having the same disease at different stages. AxSpA respond best to TNF-blocker - and probably also to other biologics - if the disease duration is short and if objective parameters of inflammation, such as C-reactive protein or MRI are positive. Primary aim of treatment is to reach and maintain clinical remission. Once remission is achieved, it can be maintained by continuing treatment, and in a proportion of yet not well defined patients the drug dose can be reduced without inducing a flare. The recent demonstration of a good efficacy, in addition to TNF blockers, also of IL-17 inhibitors and JAK-inhibitors in axSpA patients raises the question how to select the best patients for the best treatment. Radiographic progression can best be stopped by effectively suppressing inflammation, whether different drugs have here a different effect has still to be defined. More sensitive measurements of radiographic progression are urgently needed.

SUMMARY

Reaching and maintaining clinical remission and preventing structural bony damage is the primary treatment target in patients with axSpA. How to reach this aim best has to be further explored in the future.

Similarities and Differences Between Juvenile and Adult Spondyloarthropathies

Spondyloarthritis (SpA) encompasses a broad spectrum of conditions occurring from childhood to middle age. Key features of SpA include axial and peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, extra-articular manifestations, and a strong association with HLA-B27. These features are common across the ages but there are important differences between juvenile and adult onset disease. Juvenile SpA predominantly affects the peripheral joints and the incidence of axial arthritis increases with age. Enthesitis is important in early disease. This review article highlights the similarities and differences between juvenile and adult SpA including classification, pathogenesis, clinical features, imaging, therapeutic strategies, and disease outcomes. In addition, the impact of the biological transition from childhood to adulthood is explored including the importance of musculoskeletal and immunological maturation. We discuss how the changes associated with adolescence may be important in explaining age-related differences in the clinical phenotype between juvenile and adult SpA and their implications for the treatment of juvenile SpA.

Treatment strategies in axial spondyloarthritis: what, when and how?

There have been major advances in the management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with the introduction of effective biologic agents targeting TNF and IL-17A. Clinicians now have more choice but, despite treatment recommendations, are still faced with significant uncertainty when deciding on the optimal treatment strategy for an individual patient in clinical practice. Management of axSpA typically requires both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. NSAIDs remain the first line drug therapies for axSpA with proven efficacy for symptomatic management but uncertainty remains regarding their optimal long-term use relating to radiographic progression and safety in axSpA. To-date there are no head-to-head trials of biologics in axSpA. Clinicians need to consider other factors, including extra-articular manifestations, comorbidities, safety and radiographic progression when deciding on which biologic to recommend for an individual patient. This article will explore the evidence relating to these factors and highlight areas of unmet need.

Brazilian recommendations for the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with axial spondyloarthritis

Spondyloarthritis (SpA) is a group of chronic inflammatory systemic diseases characterized by axial and/or peripheral joints inflammation, as well as extra-articular manifestations. Over some decades, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been the basis for the pharmacological treatment of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). However, the emergence of the immunobiologic agents brought up the discussion about the role of NSAIDs in the management of these patients. The objective of this guideline is to provide recommendations for the use of NSAIDs for the treatment of axSpA. A panel of experts from the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials for 15 predefined questions. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations were used, and at least 70% agreement of the voting panel was needed. Fourteen recommendations for the use of NSAIDs in the treatment of patients with axSpA were elaborated. The purpose of these recommendations is to support clinicians' decision making, without taking out his/her autonomy when prescribing for an individual patient.

Treatment of Axial Spondyloarthritis: What Does the Future Hold?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide a summary of the recent and expected developments related to the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis.

RECENT FINDINGS

An increasing number of interleukin-17 blocking agents show efficacy in axial spondyloarthritis including both non-radiographic and radiographic forms. Janus kinase inhibitors showed promising results in phase II studies in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis and have, therefore, a potential to become a therapeutic option in this indication in the future. Inhibition of structural damage progression in axial spondyloarthritis seems to be possible in the case of effective and early anti-inflammatory treatment, although there are still open questions related to particular drug classes. Despite major advances in the field and growing therapeutic options, there are still many open questions related to the optimized treatment strategies and to the individual choice of a drug in axial spondyloarthritis.

[Current treatment of axial spondylarthritis : Clinical efficacy]

Drug treatment in patients with axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) aims to modify symptoms and complaints and currently includes the substance groups of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and biologicals (disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, bDMARDS). Treatment with NSAIDs is the first line treatment according to international and national recommendations. Patients with persisting high disease activity despite continuous standard treatment with NSAIDs, should be treated with biologicals. In Germany treatment with tumor necosis factor (TNF) inhibitors or interleukin 17 inhibitor (secukinumab) are currently approved for treating patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Treatment of patients with non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) is restricted to TNF inhibitors (except infliximab) in Germany. The efficacy and safety are documented for both substance groups; however, due to the longer time since approval longitudinal data for TNF inhibitors are more robust and the data contain information about switching within a substance group. Although overall retention rates of TNF inhibitors are similar despite the difference in formation of antidrug antibodies, data from cohorts provide information about long-term loss of efficacy, switching and also discontinuation strategies. In the meantime, various biosimilars have been approved for infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. Conventional basic treatment (csDMARDs) and in particular intra-articular administration of glucocorticoids can only be prescribed for axSpA patients with peripheral arthritis.

Treat to Target in Axial Spondyloarthritis

This article discusses treat-to-target strategies in axial spondyloarthritis and current status. Treatment ranging from nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to biologic and other disease-modifying drugs is discussed in the context of treat-to-target. The article explores evidence from landmark randomized, controlled trials and observational studies focusing on both radiographic and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis. The feasibility of treat-to-target, as well as predictors of remission are addressed in line with existing evidence. Finally, issues around management principles and challenges, as well as unmet need in the field, are highlighted.

Defining the target: clinical aims in axial spondyloarthritis

Treat-to-target (T2T) is an emerging treatment paradigm in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), originally based on evidence from other inflammatory conditions, which aims to direct therapy to a clear target such as disease remission or low disease activity, with the ultimate goal of maximizing quality of life in affected individuals. The 2016 update of the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society/EULAR guidelines for axSpA have recommended that treatment should be guided according to a predefined target but controversy remains as to what this target should be. An international task force has recommended remission or inactive disease as the desired outcome; however, there are many disease outcome measures developed for use in clinical practice in axSpA and the question remains of which is the most appropriate to use. Another important consideration when discussing the T2T paradigm is when to intervene. Although evidence is limited in this respect, the available data suggest that therapy should be commenced at an early stage of the disease, when the process of bone repair expected to occur after an inflammatory phase has not yet started. It has also been argued that the success of the T2T paradigm may depend more on the treatment strategy than the individual therapies utilized. This article will explore the feasibility of using a T2T approach in axSpA clinical practice, the utilization of new composite outcome measures of disease activity such as the ASDAS, and the validity of different treatment strategies to allow for a T2T intervention in these patients.

The current standard of care and the unmet needs for axial spondyloarthritis

The aim of this article is to explore the benefits and limitations of the established treatments for axial SpA (axSpA), including physiotherapy, NSAIDs, conventional synthetic DMARDs and biologic DMARDs such as TNF inhibitors (TNFis). It also briefly discusses the emerging role of anti-IL-17 therapy, which could be used as a valuable alternative to first-line biologic DMARD treatment or as a second-line treatment for patients who are inadequate responders to TNFi therapy, as evidenced by various studies. Exercise programmes improve health-related quality of life and hydrotherapy improves disease activity and functional parameters in AS. NSAIDs have been proven to substantially relieve symptoms in 70-80% of patients and enhance physiotherapy by reducing pain and stiffness. The role of NSAIDs in preventing radiographic progression remains unclear. The use of conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) is limited to peripheral arthritis; there is insufficient evidence to support the use of csDMARDs for axial disease. TNFi therapy reduces the disease activity of axSpA, however, as not all patients respond to treatment in the same way, it is good to have other therapeutic options available. Finally, this article explores the potential for IL-17 inhibition in AS and introduces clinical data for secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting IL-17A.

An overview of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are engineered proteins with high affinity for various proinflammatory immune mediators to reduce inflammation and its sequelae in various rheumatic diseases. These medications, introduced at the advent of the 21st century, have revolutionized the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (including ankylosing spondylitis) and psoriatic arthritis. Currently approved bDMARDs for axial spondyloarthritis are etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, and secukinumab. For psoriatic arthritis, all of these drugs are approved in addition to ixekizumab, ustekinumab, abatacept, and tofacitinib. Selection of the optimal bDMARD should consider patient comorbidity including uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

Status of etoricoxib in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Expert panel opinion

Pain is one of the most disabling symptoms of rheumatoid diseases. Patients with pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or gout require effective analgesic treatment, and the physician’s task is to select a drug that is best suited for an individual patient. The choice of pharmacotherapy should be based both on drug potency and clinical efficacy, and its safety profile, particularly in the elderly population, as the number of comorbidities (and hence the risk of treatment complications and drug interactions) rises with age. In cases involving a high risk of gastrointestinal complications or concerns about hepatotoxicity, with a low cardiovascular risk, the first-line nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to consider should be coxibs including etoricoxib.

[Tapering and termination of immunosuppressive treatment in spondyloarthritides (including psoriatic arthritis)]

BACKGROUND

Immunomodulatory long-term treatment has also become the standard treatment for spondyloarthritides (SpA), including psoriatic arthritis (PsA); however, uncertainty exists about dose reduction or termination of treatment after remission or low disease activity.

OBJECTIVE

When is it possible to reduce medication or terminate treatment for SpA?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An extensive non-systematic literature search was performed focusing on practice guidelines, systematic meta-analyses and clinical trials on medicinal long-term treatment and voluntary medication reduction in axial and peripheral SpA, including PsA.

RESULTS

The chances of drug-free remission after treatment with biologics for axial SpA and in PsA are low; however, in remission or a state of low disease activity reduction of the cumulative dosage of biologics can be successful in 53-100% of cases without a significant increase in disease activity. The current state and duration of remission, with or without comedication with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), extra-articular disease manifestations and the results of previous treatment attempts have to be carefully taken into consideration before elective dose reduction.

CONCLUSION

Reduction of long-term treatment is an individualized decision made jointly by patients and physicians. The risk of flares and especially of extra-articular disease manifestations needs to be weighed against the possible advantages of reduced medication. Maintainenance of mediction-free disease remission is too rare in SpA or PsA patients carefully selected for biologics treatment, to allow a later voluntary termination of therapy, without at least a prior cautious attempt at dose reduction.

Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) inhibitors in the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis: current evidence and place in therapy

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) and radiographic SpA (also known as ankylosing spondylitis) are currently considered as two stages or forms of one disease (axial SpA). The treatment with tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) inhibitors has been authorized for years for ankylosing spondylitis. In recent years, most of the anti-TNFα agents have also been approved for the treatment of nonradiographic axial SpA by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and similar authorities in many countries around the world (but not in the US), increasing the number of possible therapies for this indication. Data from several clinical trials have demonstrated the good efficacy and safety profiles from those anti-TNFα agents. Presently, a large number of patients achieve a satisfactory clinical control with the current therapies, however, there remains a percentage refractory to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and TNFα inhibitors; therefore, several new drugs are currently under investigation. In 2015, the first representative of a new class of biologics [an interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor] secukinumab, was approved for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis; a clinical trial in nonradiographic axial SpA is currently underway. In this review, we discuss the recent data on efficacy and safety of TNFα-inhibitors focusing on the treatment of nonradiographic axial SpA.

Axial spondyloarthritis

The term axial spondyloarthritis covers both patients with non-radiographic and radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, which is also termed ankylosing spondylitis. The disease usually starts in the third decade of life with a male to female ratio of two to one for radiographic axial spondyloarthritis and of one to one for non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. More than 90% heritabilty has been estimated, the highest genetic association being with HLA-B27. The pathogenic role of HLA-B27 is still not clear although various hypotheses are available. On the basis of evidence from trials the cytokines tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukin-17 appear to have a relevant role in pathogenesis. The mechanisms of interaction between inflammation and new bone formation is still not completely understood but clarification will be important for the prevention of long-term structural damage of the bone. The development of new criteria for classification and for screening of patients with axial spondyloarthritis have been crucial for the early indentification and treatment of such patients, with MRI being the most important existing imaging method. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and TNF blockers are effective therapies. Blockade of interleukin-17 is a new and relevant treatment option.

Efficacy and safety of biological and targeted-synthetic DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence for the efficacy and safety of (b)biological and (ts)targeted-synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) to inform the 2016 update of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society/European League Against Rheumatism (ASAS/EULAR) recommendations for the management of axSpA.

METHODS

Systematic literature review (2009-2016) for randomised controlled trials (RCT), including long-term extensions, strategy trials and observational studies (the latter was only for safety assessment and a comparator was required). Interventions were any bDMARD or tsDMARD. All relevant efficacy and safety outcomes were included.

RESULTS

76 papers and 24 abstracts fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Large treatment effects were found both in radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) and non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) for all tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) (NNT to achieve ASAS40 response ranged between 2.6-5.2 for r-axSpA and 2.3-5.4 for nr-axSpA). For nr-axSpA, efficacy was superior for those who had objective signs of inflammation (positive C reactive protein or inflammation on MRI-SI). Secukinumab 150 mg has shown efficacy in two phase 3 RCTs (NNT to achieve ASAS40 response: 3.4 and 4.0). Ustekinumab and tofacitinib have shown positive results in phase 2/proof-of-concept trials; trials with apremilast, rituximab, interleukin (IL)-6 antagonists and abatacept have failed their primary end points. New (unknown) safety signals were not found in the trials but long-term observational safety data for TNFi are still scarce.

CONCLUSIONS

New evidence supports the efficacy and safety of TNFi both in r-axSpA and nr-axSpA. Secukinumab is the first drug targeting the IL-17 pathway in r-axSpA that has shown efficacy.

Patient-reported Flares in Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Cross-sectional Analysis of 234 Patients

OBJECTIVE

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is characterized by periodic flares. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency of patient-reported flares and their related factors.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed the 2004 data of a Canadian cohort. Participants had AS according to the modified New York criteria. Current flare status ("Are you experiencing a current flare"?), number of flares over the past 3 months, their average duration, the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity and Functional Index (BASDAI and BASFI, respectively), and the AS Quality of Life questionnaire were assessed by self-report. Univariate and multivariate regressions analyzed the factors associated with current flare.

RESULTS

Among 234 analyzed patients, 169 (73.5%) were men, mean age was 45.5 (± 11.8) years, mean disease duration of 21.7 (± 11.7) years, and mean BASDAI and BASFI (0-10) of 4.4 (± 2.3) and 3.4 (± 2.6), respectively; 18 (7.7%) received antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF). Overall, 175 patients (74.8%) reported flares and 117 (50%) were currently in flare. Patients reporting flares had a median of 3 flares in 3 months, with a median duration of 2 weeks. Overall, the 234 patients spent a median of 25% of their time in flare. In multivariate analyses, current flare was significantly associated with higher BASDAI (OR 2.01, p = 0.01), worse quality of life (OR 1.37, p = 0.004), shorter AS duration (OR 1.19, p = 0.04), and less anti-TNF (OR 7.14, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

In this population, before the wide use of biologics, flares were frequent and long. As expected, flare was associated with higher disease activity, suggesting the validity of the concept of patient-reported flares.

An update on the use of tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis

INTRODUCTION

Ankylosing spondylitis is a chronic immune-mediated disease affecting the sacroiliac joints and the spine manifesting with new bone formation and osteopenia. Over the past decade, tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors (TNFi) have become the cornerstone for therapy in improving functional outcomes, and decreasing disease activity in patients with a marginal benefit from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) therapy. At this time, it remains to be determined whether these agents decrease new bone formation, although some studies have recently suggested that. Areas covered: In this review we discuss the factors that favour a good response to these agents both initially and during maintenance, and some of the more recent studies outlining strategies for dose reduction. Expert commentary: Finally, we discuss the importance of using more objective tools for disease activity, such as magnetic resonance imaging, as a complementary tool for clinical assessments in both predicting responses to treatment but also in selecting patients most suited for targeted therapy.

Predictors of Loss of Remission and Disease Flares in Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis Receiving Antitumor Necrosis Factor Treatment: A Retrospective Study

Objective.

The aim of this study was to evaluate rate and predictive factors of loss of remission and disease flare in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) receiving antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) treatment.

Methods.

In this retrospective multicenter study, patients with axSpA, according to the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria, treated with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab with a minimum followup of 12 months and satisfying the ASAS partial remission criteria and/or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) inactive disease were studied. Disease flare was defined as a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score > 4.5 or ASDAS score > 2.5 on at least 1 occasion.

Results.

One hundred seventy-four patients with axSpA were studied. After a median [interquartile range (IQR)] followup of 4 years (2–6), 37 patients (21.2%) experienced a loss of remission and 28 (16.1% of the whole study group) a disease flare. Median (IQR) duration of remission in patients who lost this status was 1 year (0.625–2). Higher median erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) values, continuous nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) use, and an ASDAS-CRP ≥ 0.8 during the remission period were significantly associated with both loss of remission and disease flare. At the multivariate analysis, continuous NSAID intake (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.4–11.74, p = 0.010) and ESR > 15 (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.23–6.82, p = 0.015) were the only factors predictive of disease reactivation.

Conclusion.

In this study, loss of remission and disease flares occurred, respectively, in about 21% and 16% of the patients with axSpA who achieved a state of remission while receiving anti-TNF therapy. Residual disease activity was associated with disease reactivation.

Preliminary definitions of 'flare' in axial spondyloarthritis, based on pain, BASDAI and ASDAS-CRP: an ASAS initiative

INTRODUCTION

Flares may be used as outcomes in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) trials or observational studies. The objective was to develop a definition for 'flare' (or worsening) in axSpA, based on validated composite indices, to be used in the context of clinical trial design.

METHODS

(1) Systematic literature review of definitions of 'flare' in published randomised controlled trials in axSpA. (2) Vignette exercise: 140 scenarios were constructed for a typical patient with axSpA seen at two consecutive visits. Each scenario included a change in one of the following outcomes: pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), BASDAI plus C-reactive protein (CRP) or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS)-CRP. Each Assessment of Spondyloarthritis (ASAS) expert determined if every scenario from a random sample of 46 scenarios was considered a flare (yes/no). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were applied to derive optimal cut-off values. (3) ASAS consensus was reached.

RESULTS

(1) The literature review yielded 38 studies using some definition of 'flare', with 27 different definitions indicating important heterogeneity. The most frequent definitions were based on BASDAI changes or pain changes. (2) 121 ASAS experts completed 4999 flare assessments. The areas under the ROC curves were high (range: 0.88-0.89). Preliminary cut-offs for pain (N=3), BASDAI (N=5) and ASDAS-CRP (N=4) were chosen, with a range of sensitivity 0.60-0.99 and range of specificity 0.40-0.94 against the expert's opinions.

CONCLUSIONS

This data-driven ASAS consensus process has led to 12 preliminary draft definitions of 'flare' in axSpA, based on widely used indices. These preliminary definitions will need validation in real patient data.

Pharmacological treatment of spondyloarthritis: exploring the effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biological therapies

Spondyloarthritis represents a heterogeneous group of articular inflammatory diseases that share common genetic, clinical and radiological features. The therapy target of spondyloarthritis relies mainly in improving patients' quality of life, controlling articular inflammation, preventing the structural joints damage and preserving the functional abilities, autonomy and social participation of patients. Among these, traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have been demonstrated to be effective in the management of peripheral arthritis; moreover, in the last decade, biological therapies have improved the approach to spondyloarthritis. In patients with axial spondyloarthritis, tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors are currently the only effective therapy in patients for whom conventional therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has failed. The aim of this review is to summarize the current experience and evidence about the pharmacological approach in spondyloarthritis patients.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for axial spondyloarthritis (ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis)

BACKGROUND

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) comprises ankylosing spondylitis (radiographic axSpA) and non-radiographic (nr-)axSpA and is associated with psoriasis, uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as first-line drug treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of NSAIDs in axSpA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE to 18 June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of NSAIDs versus placebo or any comparator in adults with axSpA and observational cohort studies studying the long term effect (≥ six months) of NSAIDs on radiographic progression or adverse events (AEs). The main comparions were traditional or COX-2 NSAIDs versus placebo. The major outcomes were pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI), radiographic progression, number of withdrawals due to AEs and number of serious AEs

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the quality of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 studies (35 RCTs, two quasi-RCTs and two cohort studies); and 29 RCTs and two quasi-RCTs (n = 4356) in quantitative analyses for the comparisons: traditional NSAIDs versus placebo, cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) versus placebo, COX-2 versus traditional NSAIDs, NSAIDs versus NSAIDs, naproxen versus other NSAIDs, low versus high dose. Most trials were at unclear risk of selection bias (n = 29), although blinding of participants and personnel was adequate in 24 trials. Twenty-five trials had low risk of attrition bias and 29 trials had low risk of reporting bias. Risk of bias in both cohort studies was high for study participation, and low or unclear for all other criteria. No trials in the meta-analyses assessed patients with nr-axSpA.Traditional NSAIDs were more beneficial than placebo at six weeks. High quality evidence (four trials, N=850) indicates better pain relief with NSAIDs (pain in control group ranged from 57 to 64 on a 100mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and was 16.5 points lower in the NSAID group (95% confidence interval (CI) -20.8 to -12.2), lower scores indicate less pain, NNT 4 (3 to 6)); moderate quality evidence (one trial, n = 190) indicates improved disease activity with NSAIDs (BASDAI in control group was 54.7 on a 100-point scale and was 17.5 points lower in the NSAID group, 95% CI -23.1 to -11.8), lower scores indicate less disease activity, NNT 3 (2 to 4)); and high quality evidence (two trials, n = 356) indicates improved function with NSAIDs (BASFI in control group was 50.0 on a 100-point scale and was 9.1 points lower in the NSAID group (95% CI -13.0 to -5.1), lower scores indicate better functioning, NNT 5 (3 to 8)). High (five trials, n = 1165) and moderate (three trials, n = 671) quality evidence (downgraded due to potential imprecision) indicates that withdrawals due to AEs and number of serious AEs did not differ significantly between placebo (52/1000 and 2/1000) and NSAID (39/1000 and 3/1000) groups after 12 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.21; and RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 7.97, respectively). BASMI and radiographic progression were not reported.COX-2 NSAIDS were also more efficacious than placebo at six weeks. High quality evidence (two trials, n = 349) indicates better pain relief with COX-2 (pain in control group was 64 points and was 21.7 points lower in the COX-2 group (95% CI -35.9 to -7.4), NNT 3 (2 to 24)); moderate quality evidence (one trial, n = 193) indicates improved disease activity with COX-2 (BASDAI in control groups was 54.7 points and was 22 points lower in the COX-2 group (95% CI -27.4 to -16.6), NNT 2 (1 to 3)); and high quality evidence (two trials, n = 349) showed improved function with COX-2 (BASFI in control group was 50.0 points and was 13.4 points lower in the COX-2 group (95% CI -17.4 to -9.5), NNT 3 (2 to 4)). Low and moderate quality evidence (three trials, n = 669) (downgraded due to potential imprecision and heterogeneity) indicates that withdrawals due to AEs and number of serious AEs did not differ significantly between placebo (11/1000 and 2/1000) and COX-2 (24/1000 and 2/1000) groups after 12 weeks (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.36 to 12.56; and RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.21, respectively). BASMI and radiographic progression were not reported.There were no significant differences in benefits (pain on VAS: MD -2.62, 95% CI -10.99 to 5.75; three trials, n = 669) or harms (withdrawals due to AEs: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.82; four trials, n = 995) between NSAID classes. While indomethacin use resulted in significantly more AEs (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; 11 studies, n = 1135), and neurological AEs (RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.32 to 4.14; nine trials, n = 963) than other NSAIDs, these findings were not robust to sensitivity analyses. We found no important differences in harms between naproxen and other NSAIDs (three trials, n = 646), although other NSAIDs appeared more effective for relieving pain (MD 6.80, 95% CI 3.72 to 9.88; two trials, n = 232). We found no clear dose-response effect on benefits or harms (five studies, n = 1136). Single studies suggest NSAIDs may be effective in retarding radiographic progression, especially in certain subgroups of patients, e.g. patients with high CRP, and that this may be best achieved by continuous rather than on-demand use of NSAIDs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High to moderate quality evidence indicates that both traditional and COX-2 NSAIDs are efficacious for treating axSpA, and moderate to low quality evidence indicates harms may not differ from placebo in the short term. Various NSAIDs are equally effective. Continuous NSAID use may reduce radiographic spinal progression, but this requires confirmation.

[Efficiency and safety of different etoricoxib regimens in patients with axial spondyloarthritis, including ankylosing spondylitis]

AIM

To study the clinical and laboratory efficiency and safety of different etoricoxib (ET) regimens in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), including ankylosing spondylitis.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Forty patients with high axSpA activity (Bath Ankylosing Disease Activity Index (BASDAI 4) were examined and randomized to 2 groups: 1) 30 patients who received ET 90 mg continuously every day; 2) 10 patients who took the drug in the same dose intermittently 1-3 times weekly. The activity of axSpA (BASDAI, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP)) was evaluated at baseline, 2 and 12 weeks; adverse events were recorded at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 weeks. The number of patients who had achieved an ASAS40 response at 2 and 12 weeks were taken into consideration. RESULTS At 12 weeks, the continuous administration group displayed decreases in BASDAI from 8 to 4, in ASDAS from 3.8 to 2.6, and in hs-CRP levels from 9.5 to 3.9 mg/l; the intermittent administration group exhibited decreases in BASDAI from 7.6 to 6.0, in ASDAS from 3.5 to 3.1, and hs-CRP from 8.8 to 4.5 mg/l (p<0.05). At this time, an AS40 response was achieved by 22 (73.3%) and 2 (20%) patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.05 for all). No serious adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of ET given in a daily dose of 90 mg was much higher than that of the drug used thrice or less weekly in the patients with axSpA.

Enhanced Patient Involvement and the Need to Revise the Core Set — Report from the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group at OMERACT 2014

Objective.

To discuss the need for revision of the “core set” of domains to be included for assessment in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) randomized controlled trials and longitudinal observational studies, review work undertaken since the 2012 meeting of Outcome Measures for Rheumatology 11 (OMERACT 11) to include patient perspectives in this revision, and reassess proposed composite measures in the context of new research data and the OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework.

Methods.

The OMERACT 12 (2014) PsA working group presented work completed over the last 2 years to incorporate patient involvement in PsA outcomes research, review the endorsed PsA core set based on the patient perspective as well as new research findings, and further develop PsA responder indices. Breakout groups then discussed 2 topics: (1) the need to revise the PsA core set, and opportunities to add, move, or merge existing domains to improve existing redundancy; and (2) how to incorporate the core set in a composite index. Breakout groups fed back to the working group before participant voting.

Results.

Meeting participants endorsed the need to revise the PsA core set according to the OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework (100%), and the inclusion of disease impact (94%) and fatigue (72%) in the inner circle. Breakout group feedback suggested the core set revision was an opportunity to consolidate pathophysiologic aspects such as arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, spondylitis as “inflammatory musculoskeletal disease,” and nail and skin psoriasis as “psoriasis activity.”

Conclusion.

Future work will focus on updating the PsA core set and development of responder indices with ongoing, meaningful involvement of patient research partners.

The window of opportunity: a relevant concept for axial spondyloarthritis

The window of opportunity is a concept critical to rheumatoid arthritis treatment. Early treatment changes the outcome of rheumatoid arthritis treatment, in that response rates are higher with earlier disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug treatment and damage is substantially reduced. Axial spondyloarthritis is an inflammatory axial disease encompassing both nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis and established ankylosing spondylitis. In axial spondyloarthritis, studies of magnetic resonance imaging as well as tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment and withdrawal studies all suggest that early effective suppression of inflammation has the potential to reduce radiographic damage. This potential would suggest that the concept of a window of opportunity is relevant not only to rheumatoid arthritis but also to axial spondyloarthritis. The challenge now remains to identify high-risk patients early and to commence treatment without delay. Developments in risk stratification include new classification criteria, identification of clinical risk factors, biomarkers, genetic associations, potential antibody associations and an ankylosing spondylitis-specific microbiome signature. Further research needs to focus on the evidence for early intervention and the early identification of high-risk individuals.

Spontaneous, drug-induced, and drug-free remission in peripheral and axial spondyloarthritis

In spondyloarthritis (SpA), spontaneous remission is best described in reactive arthritis, a form of peripheral SpA. Prior SpA observational studies suggested that a significant percentage of patients reached spontaneous remission; however, these patients were followed up under older, broader European Spondyloarthropathy Study Group (ESSG) criteria or were not defined by specific criteria. In general, they were mixed populations of peripheral and axial disease, and the subsets were not differentiated when assessing end points such as remission. There are limited data on the natural history of axial SpA, in part because of the evolution of the criteria with the more recently developed Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria, including the designation of non-radiographic axial SpA and peripheral SpA. Clinical trials have been conducted with various remission end points including withdrawal of therapy to determine remission maintenance. The following review addresses the potential for remission in axial and peripheral SpA based on the data from both observational studies and clinical trials.

Advances in managing ankylosing spondylitis

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory disease with prominent involvement of the spine and sacroiliac joints which frequently leads to significant spine deformity and disability. The development of effective therapies for AS, particularly with anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, has resulted in improved symptoms and functions for many patients, and clinical research increasingly suggests that effective therapy can also prevent destruction in the spine and other structures. Recent focus of disease classification in AS has emphasized that many individuals with features of inflammatory back pain but no visible changes on plain x-rays have active inflammatory disease when imaged with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Recent studies indicate that individuals with "non-radiographic" spondylitis can also respond to anti-inflammatory therapies. Several new agents are also showing promise for treatment of AS. These developments represent a significant advance in the management of this debilitating condition.

Biological therapies for spondyloarthritis

Biological therapies and new imaging techniques have changed the therapeutic and diagnostic approach to spondyloarthritis. In patients with axial spondyloarthritis, tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) inhibitor treatment is currently the only effective therapy in patients for whom conventional therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has failed. TNFα inhibitor treatment is more effective in preventing articular damage in peripheral joints than in axial ones. It is important to treat patients at an early stage of disease to reduce disease progression; moreover it is necessary to identify causes of therapy inefficacy in preventing joint damage in the axial subset.

Consensus statement on the investigation and management of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA)

AIM

Non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) is axial inflammatory arthritis where plain radiographic damage is not evident. An unknown proportion of these patients will progress to ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The increasing recognition of nr-axSpA has been greatly assisted by the widespread use of magnetic resonance imaging. The aim of this article was to construct a set of consensus statements based on a literature review to guide investigation and promote best management of nr-axSpA.

METHODS

A literature review using Medline was conducted covering the major investigation modalities and treatment options available. A group of rheumatologists and a radiologist with expertise in investigation and management of SpA reviewed the literature and formulated a set of consensus statements. The Grade system encompassing the level of evidence and strength of recommendation was used. The opinion of a patient with nr-axSpA and a nurse experienced in the care of SpA patients was also sought and included.

RESULTS

The literature review found few studies specifically addressing nr-axSpA, or if these patients were included, their results were often not separately reported. Fourteen consensus statements covering investigation and management of nr-axSpA were formulated. The level of agreement was high and ranged from 8.1 to 9.8. Treatment recommendations vary little with established AS, but this is primarily due to the lack of available evidence on the specific treatment of nr-axSpA.

CONCLUSION

The consensus statements aim to improve the diagnosis and management of nr-axSpA. We aim to raise awareness of this condition by the public and doctors and promote appropriate investigation and management.