2010 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis

This first update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations on the management of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is based on the original paper, a systematic review of existing recommendations and the literature since 2005 and the discussion and agreement among 21 international experts, 2 patients and 2 physiotherapists in a meeting in February 2010. Each original bullet point was discussed in detail and reworded if necessary. Decisions on new recommendations were made - if necessary after voting. The strength of the recommendations (SOR) was scored on an 11-point numerical rating scale after the meeting by email. These recommendations apply to patients of all ages that fulfill the modified NY criteria for AS, independent of extra-articular manifestations, and they take into account all drug and non-drug interventions related to AS. Four overarching principles were introduced, implying that one bullet has been moved to this section. There are now 11 bullet points including 2 new ones, one related to extra-articular manifestations and one to changes in the disease course. With a mean score of 9.1 (range 8-10) the SOR was generally very good.     

Current evidence for the management of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic literature review for the ASAS/EULAR management recommendations in ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE: To assess available management strategies in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) using a systematic approach, as a part of the development of evidence based recommendations for the management of AS. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify relevant interventions for the management of AS. Evidence for each intervention was categorised by study type, and outcome data for efficacy, adverse effects, and cost effectiveness were abstracted. The effect size, rate ratio, number needed to treat, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio were calculated for each intervention where possible. Results from randomised controlled trials were pooled where appropriate. RESULTS: Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions considered to be of interest to clinicians involved in the management of AS were identified. Good evidence (level Ib) exists supporting the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and coxibs for symptomatic treatment. Non-pharmacological treatments are also supported for maintaining function in AS. The use of conventional antirheumatoid arthritis drugs is not well supported by high level research evidence. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab and etanercept) have level Ib evidence supporting large treatment effects for spinal pain and function in AS over at least 6 months. Level IV evidence supports surgical interventions in specific patients. CONCLUSION: This extensive literature review forms the evidence base considered in the development of the new ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of AS.     

强直性脊柱炎患者生物制剂的优化治疗

目的:评估AS治疗中生物制剂减量的可行性与有效性。方法:对2014年9月至2020年7月的研究进行广泛地系统文献综述,以筛选相关论文和摘要,并应用纳入/排除标准之后,采用结构化提取过程来收集被纳入研究的信息。结果:13/93篇论文被纳入对AS患者生物制剂减量的分析,其中7/13篇采用减少剂量方案,3/13篇采用延长间隔...     

First update of the international ASAS consensus statement for the use of anti-TNF agents in patients with ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE: To update the international recommendations for use of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. METHODS: The published recommendations on anti-TNF treatment in ankylosing spondylitis formed the basis of the update. A questionnaire was sent to the ASAS (assessment in ankylosing spondylitis) members before the final decisions were agreed upon at an international meeting of the ASAS working group. RESULTS: Only minor changes to the original consensus statement were required. For the initiation of anti-TNF treatment, there should be: a diagnosis of definitive ankylosing spondylitis (normally based on modified New York criteria); active disease for at least four weeks, as defined by a sustained Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI) of > or =4 on a 0-10 scale and expert opinion based on clinical findings; refractory disease, defined by failure of at least two non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs during a three month period, failure of intra-articular steroids (if indicated), and failure of sulfasalazine in patients with predominantly peripheral arthritis; and application of the usual precautions and contraindications for biological treatment. For monitoring anti-TNF treatment: both the ASAS core set for clinical practice and the BASDAI should be followed after the initiation of treatment. Discontinuation of anti-TNF treatment in non-responders should be considered after 6-12 weeks. Response is defined by improvement of at least 50% or 2 units (on a 0-10 scale) of the BASDAI. CONCLUSIONS: This updated consensus statement is recommended in guiding clinical practice and as a basis for developing national guidelines. Evaluation and regular update of this consensus statement is subject to further research by the ASAS group.     

Amyloidosis in a case of ankylosing spondylitis with a review of the literature

A 53-year-old man with a 20-year history of ankylosing spondylitis presented with proteinuria and acute renal insufficiency. Amyloidosis was diagnosed on renal biopsy. The association of secondary amyloidosis has been described with collagen vascular diseases, however, a review of the literature reveals few cases associated with the spondyloarthropathies. We were able to find only 2 cases in the American literature. Thus, although a rare complication, amyloidosis should be considered in the differential diagnosis of proteinuria and renal insufficiency in spondyloarthropathy.     

Validation exercise of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Assessment Study (ASAS) group response criteria in ankylosing spondylitis patients treated with biologics

OBJECTIVES: To define what expert clinicians consider a dramatic response in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients treated with biologic therapies based on patient and physician assessments of global disease activity. To compare this expert clinician-derived criteria to the Ankylosing Spondylitis Assessment Study (ASAS) Group criteria for improvement. METHODS: Forty consecutive AS patients were treated in a 1-year open-label protocol with infliximab. Response to treatment at week 52 was defined using ASAS response criteria. For the purpose of this exercise, improvement using ASAS criteria was defined by consensus among experts as good with 50% improvement from baseline (ASAS(50)) and dramatic with 70% improvement from baseline (ASAS(70)). Experts established separate criteria for improvement in disease activity as good or dramatic based on patient and physician global assessment of disease activity. RESULTS: Twelve of 40 patients met the ASAS(70) criteria, however, only 8 met the expert definition of a dramatic improvement based on physician global scores and 5 met the expert definition of a dramatic improvement based on patient global assessment of disease activity. Agreement was poor between ASAS(50) or ASAS(70) and expert definition of improvement based on physician global scores (kappa < 0.3), but agreement was moderate to good between ASAS(50) or ASAS(70) and expert definition of improvement based on patient global scores, (kappa = 0.6-0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Differential response experienced by AS patients treated with infliximab was adequately captured by the ASAS composite improvement criteria. Overall, this study demonstrates the validity of the ASAS criteria for the detection of improvement in AS patients treated with biologics. However, the patient global assessment of disease activity may be sufficient to monitor changes in disease activity in these patients.     

Pregnancy outcomes in women with ankylosing spondylitis: a scoping literature and methodological review

Clinical Rheumatology - In this scoping review, we sought to summarize the types of outcomes collected in pregnant patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and to identify some methodological...     

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 alpha (anti-TNF alpha) 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-TNF alpha 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-TNF alpha therapy: both the BASDAI and the ASAS core set for clinical practice should be followed regularly. (3) For the discontinuation of anti-TNF alpha 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-TNF alpha 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.     

Italian consensus on EULAR recommendations 2005 for the management of hip osteoarthritis

The recommendations for the management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip were proposed by EULAR in 2005. Among the most important objectives of the expert charged to provide these recommendations were their wide dissemination and implementation. Thus, the information generated can be used by each individual country to produce their own set of management guidelines and algorithms for treatment in primary care. According with that previously executed for the EU-LAR recommendation 2003 for the knee, the Italian Society of Rheumatology (SIR) has organised a Consensus on the EULAR recommendations 2005 for the management of hip OA. To obtain an acceptability as large as possible, the group of experts was composed by many physicians interested in the management of hip OA, including Orthopaedics, Rheumatologists, Physiatrists, and General Practitioners. Main aim of the Consensus was to analyse the acceptability and applicability of the recommendations according to own experience and local situations in the Italy. The results of this Consensus have demonstrated that a large majority of the EULAR recommendations are endorsed by the Italian experts. Furthermore, the final document of the Italian Consensus clearly indicated the need that the specialists involved in the management of hip OA strongly encourage the dissemination of the EULAR 2005 recommendations also in Italy.