Objective
To update evidence‐based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).
Methods
We conducted updated ...systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat‐to‐target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel.
Results
Recommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co‐administration of low‐dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat‐to‐target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended.
Conclusion
These recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA.
Objective
To update evidence‐based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).
Methods
We conducted updated ...systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat‐to‐target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel.
Results
Recommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co‐administration of low‐dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat‐to‐target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended.
Conclusion
These recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA.
Objective
To provide evidence‐based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).
Methods
A core group led the ...development of the recommendations, starting with the treatment questions. A literature review group conducted systematic literature reviews of studies that addressed 57 specific treatment questions, based on searches conducted in OVID Medline (1946–2014), PubMed (1966–2014), and the Cochrane Library. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. A separate voting group reviewed the evidence and voted on recommendations for each question using the GRADE framework.
Results
In patients with active AS, the strong recommendations included use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) when activity persists despite NSAID treatment, not to use systemic glucocorticoids, use of physical therapy, and use of hip arthroplasty for patients with advanced hip arthritis. Among the conditional recommendations was that no particular TNFi was preferred except in patients with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease or recurrent iritis, in whom TNFi monoclonal antibodies should be used. In patients with active nonradiographic axial SpA despite treatment with NSAIDs, we conditionally recommend treatment with TNFi. Other recommendations for patients with nonradiographic axial SpA were based on indirect evidence and were the same as for patients with AS.
Conclusion
These recommendations provide guidance for the management of common clinical questions in AS and nonradiographic axial SpA. Additional research on optimal medication management over time, disease monitoring, and preventive care is needed to help establish best practices in these areas.
Objective
The natural history of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is incompletely characterized, and there are concerns that nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs provide inadequate ...disease control in patients with active disease. This study was undertaken to investigate the effects of certolizumab pegol (CZP), an anti–tumor necrosis factor treatment, in patients with nonradiographic axial SpA with objective signs of inflammation.
Methods
In this ongoing parallel‐group double‐blind study, adults with active disease were recruited from 80 centers in Australia, Europe, North America, and Taiwan, and were randomized 1:1 to receive placebo or CZP (400 mg at weeks 0, 2, and 4, followed by 200 mg every 2 weeks) in addition to nonbiologic background medication (NBBM). Switching to open‐label CZP (or other biologic) or making background medication changes was permitted at any point during the trial, although changes before week 12 were discouraged. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving major improvement (MI) (i.e., a ≥2.0‐point decrease in the score from baseline or achievement of the lowest possible score 0.6) in the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) at week 52.
Results
A total of 317 patients were randomized to receive placebo plus NBBM (n = 158) or CZP plus NBBM (n = 159). ASDAS‐MI at week 52 was achieved in 47.2% (75 of 159) of CZP plus NBBM patients, which was significantly greater (P < 0.0001) than the 7.0% (11 of 158) of placebo plus NBBM patients in whom ASDAS‐MI was achieved. Of the placebo plus NBBM patients, 60.8% (96 of 158) switched to open‐label treatment before week 52 compared to 12.6% (20 of 159) of the CZP plus NBBM patients.
Conclusion
Adding CZP to background medication is superior to adding placebo in patients with active nonradiographic axial SpA. These results indicate that remission in nonradiographic axial SpA treated without biologics occurs infrequently, demonstrating the need for treatment beyond nonbiologic therapy.
The cardiovascular burden in inflammatory rheumatic diseases is well recognized. Recently, this burden has been highlighted in ankylosing spondylitis (also known as radiographic axial ...spondyloarthritis) and psoriatic arthritis. We review the cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in these diseases, as well as the prevalence and incidence of traditional cardiovascular risk factors. We examine the contribution of anti-inflammatory therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, and TNF inhibitors on the cardiovascular risk profile. Finally, we examine the available recommendations for the management of cardiovascular comorbidity, as they apply to the spondyloarthritis population.
ObjectivesBimekizumab selectively neutralises both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F. We report efficacy and safety in a phase IIb dose-ranging study in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis ...(AS).MethodsAdults with AS (fulfilling modified New York criteria) were randomised 1:1:1:1:1 to bimekizumab 16 mg, 64 mg, 160 mg, 320 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 weeks (double-blind period). At week 12, patients receiving bimekizumab 16 mg, 64 mg or placebo were re-randomised 1:1 to bimekizumab 160 mg or 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 48; other patients continued on their initial dose (dose-blind period). The primary end point was Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) 40 response at week 12 (non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing data).Results303 patients were randomised: bimekizumab 16 mg (n=61), 64 mg (n=61), 160 mg (n=60), 320 mg (n=61) or placebo (n=60). At week 12, significantly more bimekizumab-treated patients achieved ASAS40 vs placebo (NRI: 29.5%–46.7% vs 13.3%; p<0.05 all comparisons; OR vs placebo 2.6–5.5 (95% CI 1.0 to 12.9)). A significant dose-response was observed (p<0.001). The primary end point was supported by all secondary efficacy outcomes. At week 48, 58.6% and 62.3% of patients receiving bimekizumab 160 and 320 mg throughout the study achieved ASAS40, respectively (NRI); similar ASAS40 response rates were observed in re-randomised patients. During the double-blind period, treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 26/60 (43.3%) patients receiving placebo and 92/243 (37.9%) receiving bimekizumab.ConclusionsBimekizumab provided rapid and sustained improvements in key outcome measures in patients with active AS, with no unexpected safety findings versus previous studies.Trial registration number NCT02963506.
ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy/safety of tofacitinib in adult patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).MethodsThis phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled ...patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with active AS, meeting the modified New York criteria, with centrally read radiographs, and an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥2 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day or placebo for 16 weeks. After week 16, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48. The primary and key secondary endpoints were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society ≥20% improvement (ASAS20) and ≥40% improvement (ASAS40) responses, respectively, at week 16. Safety was assessed throughout.Results269 patients were randomised and treated: tofacitinib, n=133; placebo, n=136. At week 16, the ASAS20 response rate was significantly (p<0.0001) greater with tofacitinib (56.4%, 75 of 133) versus placebo (29.4%, 40 of 136), and the ASAS40 response rate was significantly (p<0.0001) greater with tofacitinib (40.6%, 54 of 133) versus placebo (12.5%, 17 of 136). Up to week 16, with tofacitinib and placebo, respectively, 73 of 133 (54.9%) and 70 of 136 (51.5%) patients had adverse events; 2 of 133 (1.5%) and 1 of 136 (0.7%) had serious adverse events. Up to week 48, with tofacitinib, 3 of 133 (2.3%) patients had adjudicated hepatic events, 3 of 133 (2.3%) had non-serious herpes zoster, and 1 of 133 (0.8%) had a serious infection; with placebo→tofacitinib, 2 (1.5%) patients had non-serious herpes zoster. There were no deaths, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, thromboembolic events or opportunistic infections.ConclusionsIn adults with active AS, tofacitinib demonstrated significantly greater efficacy versus placebo. No new potential safety risks were identified.Trial registration number NCT03502616
At present, biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the only treatment recommended for patients with ankylosing spondylitis who have not responded to first-line treatment with ...non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The TORTUGA trial investigated the efficacy and safety of filgotinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, for the treatment of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis.
In this completed, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, we enrolled adult patients from 30 sites in seven countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Spain, and Ukraine). Eligible patients had active ankylosing spondylitis and an inadequate response or intolerance to two or more NSAIDs. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive web-based response system to receive filgotinib 200 mg or placebo orally once daily for 12 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by current use of conventional synthetic DMARDs and previous receipt of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy. The patients, study team, and study sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS) at week 12, which was assessed in the full analysis set (ie, all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug). Safety was assessed according to actual treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03117270.
Between March 7, 2017, and July 2, 2018, 263 patients were screened and 116 randomly assigned to filgotinib (n=58) or placebo (n=58). 55 (95%) patients in the filgotinib group and 52 (90%) in the placebo group completed the study; three (5%) patients in the filgotinib group and six (10%) in the placebo group discontinued treatment. The mean ASDAS change from baseline to week 12 was −1·47 (SD 1·04) in the filgotinib group and −0·57 (0·82) in the placebo group, with a least squares mean difference between groups of −0·85 (95% CI −1·17 to −0·53; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 18 patients in each group, the most common being nasopharyngitis (in two patients in the filgotinib group and in four patients in the placebo group). Treatment-emergent adverse events led to permanent treatment discontinuation in two patients (a case of grade 3 pneumonia in the filgotinib group and of high creatine kinase in the placebo group). No deaths were reported during the study.
Filgotinib is efficacious and safe for the treatment of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis who have not responded to first-line pharmacological therapy with NSAIDs. Further investigation of filgotinib for ankylosing spondylitis is warranted.
Galapagos and Gilead Sciences.
Therapeutic targets have been defined for axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) in 2012, but the evidence for these recommendations was only of indirect nature. These recommendations were ...re-evaluated in light of new insights. Based on the results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of rheumatologists, dermatologists, patients and a health professional developed an update of the 2012 recommendations. These underwent intensive discussions, on site voting and subsequent anonymous electronic voting on levels of agreement with each item. A set of 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations were developed and voted on. Some items were present in the previous recommendations, while others were significantly changed or newly formulated. The 2017 task force arrived at a single set of recommendations for axial and peripheral SpA, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The most exhaustive discussions related to whether PsA should be assessed using unidimensional composite scores for its different domains or multidimensional scores that comprise multiple domains. This question was not resolved and constitutes an important research agenda. There was broad agreement, now better supported by data than in 2012, that remission/inactive disease and, alternatively, low/minimal disease activity are the principal targets for the treatment of PsA. As instruments to assess the patients on the path to the target, the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) for axial SpA and the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) for PsA were recommended, although not supported by all. Shared decision-making between the clinician and the patient was seen as pivotal to the process. The task force defined the treatment target for SpA as remission or low disease activity and developed a large research agenda to further advance the field.
PDF
