J. Sieper

The development of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part II): validation and final selection

Objective: To validate and refine two sets of candidate criteria for the classification/diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Methods: All Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) members were invited to include consecutively new patients with chronic (⩾3 months) back pain of unknown origin that began before 45 years of age. The candidate criteria were first tested in the entire cohort of 649 patients from 25 centres, and then refined in a random selection of 40% of cases and thereafter validated in the remaining 60%. Results: Upon diagnostic work-up, axial SpA was diagnosed in 60.2% of the cohort. Of these, 70% did not fulfil modified New York criteria and, therefore, were classified as having “non-radiographic” axial SpA. Refinement of the candidate criteria resulted in new ASAS classification criteria that are defined as: the presence of sacroiliitis by radiography or by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus at least one SpA feature (“imaging arm”) or the presence of HLA-B27 plus at least two SpA features (“clinical arm”). The sensitivity and specificity of the entire set of the new criteria were 82.9% and 84.4%, and for the imaging arm alone 66.2% and 97.3%, respectively. The specificity of the new criteria was much better than that of the European Spondylarthropathy Study Group criteria modified for MRI (sensitivity 85.1%, specificity 65.1%) and slightly better than that of the modified Amor criteria (sensitivity 82.9, specificity 77.5%). Conclusion: The new ASAS classification criteria for axial SpA can reliably classify patients for clinical studies and may help rheumatologists in clinical practice in diagnosing axial SpA in those with chronic back pain. Trial registration number: NCT00328068.

Updated consensus statement on biological agents for the treatment of rheumatic diseases, 2009

As in previous years, the consensus group to consider the use of biological agents in the treatment of rheumatic diseases met during the 13th Annual Workshop on Advances in Targeted Therapies in April, 2011. The group consisted of rheumatologists from a number of universities among the continents of Europe, North America, South America, Australia and Asia. Pharmaceutical industry support was obtained from a number of companies for the annual workshop itself, but these companies had no part in the decisions about the specific programme or about the academic participants at this conference. Representatives of the supporting sponsors participated in the initial working groups to supply factual information. The sponsors did not participate in the drafting of the consensus statement. This consensus was prepared from the perspective of the treating physician. In view of the new data for abatacept, B cell-specific agents, interleukin 1 (IL-1) antagonists, tocilizumab (TCZ) and tumour necrosis factor α blocking agents (TNF inhibitors), an update of the previous consensus statement is appropriate. To allow ease of updating, the 2010 (data from March 2009 to January 2010) updates are incorporated into the body of the article, while 2011 updates (February 2010–January 2011) are separated and highlighted. The consensus statement is annotated to document the credibility of the data supporting it as much as possible. This annotation is that of Shekelle et al and is described in appendix 1.1 We have modified the Shekelle annotation by designating all abstracts as ‘category D evidence’, whether they describe well-controlled trials or not, as details of the study were often not available in the abstracts. Further, the number of possible references has become so large that reviews are sometimes included; if they contain category A references, they will be referred to as category A evidence. The rheumatologists and bioscientists who attended …

The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for peripheral spondyloarthritis and for spondyloarthritis in general

Objective To evaluate new classification criteria for peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) in patients with SpA with peripheral manifestations only. Methods In this Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) study, two prespecified sets of criteria were compared against the European Spondylarthropathy Study Group (ESSG) and Amor criteria in newly referred consecutive patients with undiagnosed peripheral arthritis, and/or enthesitis, and/or dactylitis that usually began before 45 years of age. The clinical diagnosis (SpA vs no SpA) made by the ASAS rheumatologist served as reference standard. Results In all, 24 ASAS centres included 266 patients, with a final diagnosis of SpA being made in 66.2%. After adjustments a final set of criteria showed the best balance between sensitivity (77.8%) and specificity (82.9%): arthritis and/or enthesitis and/or dactylitis plus (A) one or more of the following parameters: psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, preceding infection, human leucocyte antigen B27, uveitis, sacroiliitis on imaging, or (B) two or more other parameters: arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, inflammatory back pain in the past, family history of SpA. The new criteria performed better than modified versions of the ESSG (sensitivity 62.5%, specificity 81.1%) and the Amor criteria (sensitivity 39.8%, specificity 97.8%), particularly regarding sensitivity. In the entire ASAS population of 975 patients the combined use of ASAS criteria for axial SpA and ASAS criteria for peripheral SpA also had a better balance (sensitivity 79.5%, specificity 83.3%) than the modified ESSG (sensitivity 79.1%, specificity 68.8%) and Amor criteria (sensitivity 67.5%, specificity 86.7%), respectively. Conclusions The new ASAS classification criteria for peripheral SpA performed well in patients presenting with peripheral arthritis, enthesitis and/or dactylitis.

ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis

Objective: To develop evidence based recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) as a combined effort of the ‘ASsessment in AS’ international working group and the European League Against Rheumatism. Methods: Each of the 22 participants was asked to contribute up to 15 propositions describing key clinical aspects of AS management. A Delphi process was used to select 10 final propositions. A systematic literature search was then performed to obtain scientific evidence for each proposition. Outcome data for efficacy, adverse effects, and cost effectiveness were abstracted. The effect size, relative risk, number needed to treat, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio were calculated. On the basis of the search results, 10 major recommendations for the management of AS were constructed. The strength of recommendation was assessed based on the strength of the literature evidence, risk-benefit trade-off, and clinical expertise. Results: The final recommendations considered the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (conventional NSAIDs, coxibs, and co-prescription of gastroprotective agents), disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, treatments with biological agents, simple analgesics, local and systemic steroids, non-pharmacological treatment (including education, exercise, and physiotherapy), and surgical interventions. Three general recommendations were also included. Research evidence (categories I–IV) supported 11 interventions in the treatment of AS. Strength of recommendation varied, depending on the category of evidence and expert opinion. Conclusion: Ten key recommendations for the treatment of AS were developed and assessed using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. Regular updating will be carried out to keep abreast of new developments in the management of AS.

Defining active sacroiliitis on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for classification of axial spondyloarthritis –a consensual approach by the ASAS/ OMERACT MRI Group

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of sacroiliac joints has evolved as the most relevant imaging modality for diagnosis and classification of early axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) including early ankylosing spondylitis. Objectives: To identify and describe MRI findings in sacroiliitis and to reach consensus on which MRI findings are essential for the definition of sacroiliitis. Methods: Ten doctors (two radiologists and eight rheumatologists) from the ASAS/OMERACT MRI working group reviewed and discussed in three workshops MR images depicting sacroiliitis associated with SpA and other conditions which may mimic SpA. Descriptions of the pathological findings and technical requirements for the appropriate acquisition were formulated. In a consensual approach MRI findings considered to be essential for sacroiliitis were defined. Results: Active inflammatory lesions such as bone marrow oedema (BMO)/osteitis, synovitis, enthesitis and capsulitis associated with SpA can be detected by MRI. Among these, the clear presence of BMO/osteitis was considered essential for defining active sacroiliitis. Structural damage lesions such as sclerosis, erosions, fat deposition and ankylosis can also be detected by MRI. At present, however, the exact place of structural damage lesions for diagnosis and classification is less clear, particularly if these findings are minor. The ASAS group formally approved these proposals by voting at the annual assembly. Conclusions: For the first time, MRI findings relevant for sacroiliitis have been defined by consensus by a group of rheumatologists and radiologists. These definitions should help in applying correctly the imaging feature “active sacroiliitis by MRI” in the new ASAS classification criteria for axial SpA.

European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies

Background Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a clinically heterogeneous disease. Clear consensual treatment guidance focused on the musculoskeletal manifestations of PsA would be advantageous. The authors present European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the treatment of PsA with systemic or local (non-topical) symptomatic and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). Methods The recommendations are based on evidence from systematic literature reviews performed for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), glucocorticoids, synthetic DMARD and biological DMARD. This evidence was discussed, summarised and recommendations were formulated by a task force comprising 35 representatives, and providing levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement. Results Ten recommendations were developed for treatment from NSAID through synthetic DMARD to biological agents, accounting for articular and extra-articular manifestations of PsA. Five overarching principles and a research agenda were defined. Conclusion These recommendations are intended to provide rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders with a consensus on the pharmacological treatment of PsA and strategies to reach optimal outcomes, based on combining evidence and expert opinion. The research agenda informs directions within EULAR and other communities interested in PsA.

Ankylosing spondylitis: an overview

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a complex, potentially debilitating disease that is insidious in onset, progressing to radiological sacroiliitis over several years. Patients with symptomatic AS lose productivity owing to work disability and unemployment, have a substantial use of healthcare resources, and reduced quality of life. The pathogenesis of AS is poorly understood. However, immune mediated mechanisms involving human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-B27, inflammatory cellular infiltrates, cytokines (for example, tumour necrosis factor α and interleukin 10), and genetic and environmental factors are thought to have key roles. The detection of sacroiliitis by radiography, magnetic resonance imaging, or computed tomography in the presence of clinical manifestations is diagnostic for AS, although the presence of inflammatory back pain plus at least two other typical features of spondyloarthropathy (for example, enthesitis and uveitis) is highly predictive of early AS. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) effectively relieve inflammatory symptoms and are presently first line drug treatment. However, NSAID treatment has only a symptomatic effect and probably does not alter the disease course. For symptoms refractory to NSAIDs, second line treatments, including corticosteroids and various disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, are employed but are of limited benefit. Emerging biological therapies target the inflammatory processes underlying AS, and thus, may favourably alter the disease process, in addition to providing symptom relief.

International ASAS consensus statement for the use of anti-tumour necrosis factor agents in patients with ankylosing spondylitis

Objective: To obtain an international consensus about the use of anti-tumour necrosis factor α (anti-TNFα) for treating patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods: These recommendations were developed by a review of published reports in combination with expert opinion, including a Delphi exercise, and a consensus meeting of the ASsessments in AS (ASAS) Working Group. Results: The final consensus comprises the following requirements: (1) For the initiation of anti-TNFα therapy: (a) a diagnosis of definitive AS; (b) presence of active disease for at least four weeks as defined by both a sustained Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) of at least 4 and an expert opinion based on clinical features, acute phase reactants, and imaging modalities; (c) presence of refractory disease defined by failure of at least two non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs during a single three month period, failure of intra-articular steroids if indicated, and failure of sulfasalazine in patients with peripheral arthritis; (d) application and implementation of the usual precautions and contraindications for biological therapy. (2) For the monitoring of anti-TNFα therapy: both the BASDAI and the ASAS core set for clinical practice should be followed regularly. (3) For the discontinuation of anti-TNFα therapy: in non-responders, consideration should be made after 6–12 weeks’ treatment. Response is defined as improvement of (a) at least 50% or 2 units (on a 0–10 scale) of the BASDAI, (b) expert opinion that treatment should be continued. Conclusion: This consensus statement on anti-TNFα treatment in AS may be used for guidance in clinical decision making and as the basis for the development of guidelines. Evaluation of the healthcare consequences of this consensus is subject to further research by the ASAS group.

Development of an ASAS-endorsed disease activity score (ASDAS) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis

Objectives: To develop a new index for disease activity in ankylosing spondylitis (ASDAS) that is truthful, discriminative and feasible, and includes domains/items that are considered relevant by patients and doctors. Methods: Eleven candidate variables covering six domains of disease activity, selected by ASAS experts in a Delphi exercise, were tested in a three-step approach, similar to the methodology used for the disease activity score in rheumatoid arthritis. Data on 708 patients included in ISSAS (International Study on Starting tumour necrosis factor blocking agents in Ankylosing Spondylitis) were used. Cross validation was carried out in the OASIS cohort (Outcome in Ankylosing Spondylitis International Study). Results: Principal component analysis disclosed three factors with eigenvalues >0.75: patient assessments, peripheral joint assessments and acute phase reactants. Discriminant function analysis resulted in a correct classification in ∼72% of the cases (prior probability ∼50%). Regression analysis resulted in an index with five variables (total back pain, patient global assessment, duration of morning stiffness, C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)). Three additional candidate indices were designed using similar methodology while omitting either ESR or CRP or patient global assessment. All four scores correlated with the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI; r = 0.67–0.80), patient (0.58–0.75) and physician’s global assessment (0.41–0.48) of disease activity. All four candidate ASDAS indices performed better than BASDAI or single-item variables in discriminating between high and low disease activity state, according to doctors as well as patients in the OASIS cohort. Conclusion: The first steps in the development of a new assessment tool of disease activity in AS derived four candidate indices with good face and construct validity, and high discriminant capacity.

ASDAS, a highly discriminatory ASAS-endorsed disease activity score in patients with ankylosing spondylitis

Objectives: To evaluate various validity aspects of four disease activity scores (ASDAS) for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in comparison with the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), its individual components and physician and patient global assessment of disease activity. Methods: The analyses were performed in two cohorts of patients with AS: (1) the NOR-DMARD database which includes patients starting on a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug or tumour necrosis factor (TNF) blocker and (2) patients participating in double-blind placebo controlled randomised clinical trials with TNF blockers in four centres. Discrimination between patients with low versus high disease activity according to various definitions and between various levels of change were analysed as the standardised mean difference (difference in the group means divided by the pooled SD of the group means) and t score. Results: The four ASDAS versions were highly discriminatory in differentiating patients with different levels of disease activity and patients with different levels of change. The ASDAS scores outperformed the BASDAI and its single components in all settings: patient- or physician-based, reflecting status or change, with normal or raised C-reactive protein (CRP), in the presence or absence of peripheral arthritis. There were no major differences between the four ASDAS scores. Based on feasibility, the ASAS membership selected the ASDAS version which included back pain, duration of morning stiffness, patient global assessment, peripheral joint complaints and CRP as the preferred version. Conclusions: The ASDAS is a validated, highly discriminatory instrument for assessing disease activity in AS, including patient-reported outcomes and CRP levels.