Classification criteria versus physician's opinion for considering a patient with inflammatory back pain as suffering from spondyloarthritis

2022 French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) recommendations on the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis, including psoriatic arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Update the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) recommendations on the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis, including psoriatic arthritis.

METHODS

Following standardized procedures, a systematic literature review was done by four supervised rheumatology residents based on questions defined by a task force of 16 attending rheumatologists. The findings were reviewed during three working meetings that culminated in each recommendation receiving a grade and the level of agreement among experts being determined.

RESULTS

Five general principles and 15 recommendations were developed. They take into account pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures along with treatment methods based on the dominant phenotype present (axial, articular, enthesitis/dactylitis) and the extra-articular manifestations (psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, uveitis). NSAIDs are the first-line pharmacological treatment in the various presentations. Conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) are not indicated in the axial and isolated entheseal forms. If the response to conventional treatment is not adequate, targeted therapies (biologics, synthetics) should be considered; the indications depend on the clinical phenotype and presence of extra-articular manifestations.

CONCLUSION

This update incorporates recent data (published since the prior update in 2018) and the predominant clinical phenotype concept. It aims to help physicians with the everyday management of patients affected by spondyloarthritis, including psoriatic arthritis.

Australian Consensus Statements for the Assessment and Management of Non-radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis

Background

The understanding of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) has accelerated over the last decade, producing a number of practice-changing developments. Diagnosis is challenging. No diagnostic criteria exist, no single finding is diagnostic, and other causes of back pain may act as confounders.

Aim

To update and expand the 2014 consensus statement on the investigation and management of non‐radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA).

Methods

We created search questions based on our previous statements and four new topics then searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases. We assessed relevant publications by full-text review and rated their level of evidence using the GRADE system. We compiled a GRADE evidence summary then produced and voted on consensus statements.

Results

We identified 5145 relevant publications, full-text reviewed 504, and included 176 in the evidence summary. We developed and voted on 22 consensus statements. All had high agreement. Diagnosis of nr-axSpA should be made by experienced clinicians, considering clinical features of spondyloarthritis, blood tests, and imaging. History and examination should also assess alternative causes of back pain and related conditions including non-specific back pain and fibromyalgia. Initial investigations should include CRP, HLA-B27, and AP pelvic radiography. Further imaging by T1 and STIR MRI of the sacroiliac joints is useful if radiography does not show definite changes. MRI provides moderate-to-high sensitivity and high specificity for nr-axSpA. Acute signs of sacroiliitis on MRI are not specific and have been observed in the absence of spondyloarthritis. Initial management should involve NSAIDs and a regular exercise program, while TNF and IL-17 inhibitors can be used for high disease activity unresponsive to these interventions. Goals of treatment include improving the frequent impairment of social and occupational function that occurs in nr-axSpA.

Conclusions

We provide 22 evidence-based consensus statements to provide practical guidance in the assessment and management of nr-axSpA.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00416-7.

Is Treatment in Patients With Suspected Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis Effective? Six-Month Results of a Placebo-Controlled Trial

Objective

To investigate the efficacy of 16‐week treatment with etanercept (ETN) in patients with suspected nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).

Methods

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor–naive patients with inflammatory back pain with at least 2 SpA features and high disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score ≥4), without the requirement of a positive finding on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the sacroiliac (SI) joint and/or elevated C‐reactive protein (CRP) level, were randomized (1:1) to receive ETN (n = 40) or placebo (n = 40) for 16 weeks and subsequently were followed up for a further 8 weeks (to 24 weeks from baseline) without study medication. The primary end point was the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 20 (ASAS20) response at 16 weeks. Secondary end points included the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and changes in disease parameters, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI), CRP level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada index scores (MRI of the SI joint), after 16 and 24 weeks.

Results

Patient characteristics at baseline were comparable between the ETN and placebo groups. At 16 weeks, there was no significant difference in the percentage of patients exhibiting ASAS20 response between the ETN group (6 patients [16.7%]) and the placebo group (4 patients [11.1%]) (relative risk 0.7 [95% confidence interval 0.2–2.2], P = 0.5). Only the ESR showed more improvement in the ETN group compared to the placebo group at 16 weeks (decreases of 2.2 mm/hour and 1.4 mm/hour, respectively), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Between 16 and 24 weeks, without study medication, the BASMI, CRP level, and ESR had worsened to a greater extent in the ETN group compared to the placebo group, with the difference being significant for the CRP level.

Conclusion

This study shows that in patients with suspected nonradiographic axial SpA with high disease activity but without the requirement of a positive finding on SI joint MRI and/or elevated CRP level, treatment with ETN is not effective.

Diagnostic performance of sacroiliac and spinal MRI for the diagnosis of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in patients with inflammatory back pain

OBJECTIVE

The lack of specificity of the ASAS MRI criteria for non-radiographic axial spondylarthritis (NR-axSpA) justifies the evaluation of the discriminatory capacity of other MRI abnormalities in the sacroiliac joints and dorsolumbar spine.

METHODS

In patients hospitalized for inflammatory lumbar back pain, the diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR)) of MRI abnormalities was calculated using the rheumatologist expert opinion as a reference: (i) sacroiliac joints: Bone marrow edema (BME) (number and location), extended edema>1cm (deep lesion), fatty metaplasia (number), erosion (number and location), backfill. (ii) Dorsolumbar spine: BME (number and location), fatty metaplasia (number), posterior segment involvement.

RESULTS

In this prospective cohort, 40 NR-axSpA cases and 79 other diagnoses were included. The presence of at least 3 inflammatory signals in the sacroiliac joints (PLR: 25.67 [95% CI: 3.48-48.9]), the presence of at least one sacroiliac erosion (PLR: 12.80 [3.04-54]), the combination of an inflammatory signal and sacroiliac erosion (PLR: 11.85 [2.79-50]), the combination of deep lesion and fatty metaplasia (PLR: 15.80 [2.05-121.9]) or erosion (PLR: 11.86 [1.47-95.01]) had the best diagnostic performance. The combination of spinal and sacroiliac MRI criteria significantly increased diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of NR-axSpA.

CONCLUSION

When NR-axSpA is suspected, in addition to the presence and number of inflammatory lesions, MRI interpretation should include the location and the extent of the sacroiliac lesions, the presence of erosion or fatty metaplasia, and anterior involvement of the lumbar spine.

Imaging in axial spondyloarthritis: Changing concepts and thresholds

Imaging is key to recognition of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) because clinical and laboratory examinations have limited diagnostic utility. Only MRI can capture both inflammation and bone remodeling by simultaneous depiction of active and structural lesions and their anatomic location. Bone marrow edema of limited extent on the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) MRI is often nonspecific and should be interpreted along with the clinical context. Contextual interpretation of the SIJ lesion signature viewed simultaneously on fluid- and fat-sensitive MRI sequences enhances confidence in the recognition of disease. A critical re-appraisal of using pelvic radiographs in clinically suspected early spondyloarthritis is warranted because of substantial limitations. In health care settings with low threshold access to advanced imaging, MRI is the preferred modality in early SpA. CT has recently advanced spinal outcome research, but substantial radiation exposure in young patients with spondyloarthritis and limited evidence on its relevance in practice do not advocate its use in daily routine.

2018 update of French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) recommendations about the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To update French Society for Rheumatology recommendations about the management in clinical practice of patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). SpA is considered across the range of clinical phenotypes (axial, peripheral, and entheseal) and concomitant manifestations. Psoriatic arthritis is included among the SpA phenotypes.

METHODS

According to the standard procedure advocated by the EULAR for developing recommendations, we first reviewed the literature published since the previous version of the recommendations issued in June 2013. A task force used the results to develop practice guidelines, which were then revised and graded using AGREE II.

RESULTS

Four general principles and 15 recommendations were developed. The first four recommendations deal with treatment goals and general considerations (assessment tools and comorbidities). Recommendations 5 and 6 are on non-pharmacological treatments. Recommendation 7 is about nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, which are the cornerstone of the treatment, and recommendations 8 to 10 are on analgesics, glucocorticoid therapy, and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Biologics are the focus of recommendations 11 through 14, which deal with newly introduced drug classes, including their indications (active disease despite conventional therapy and, for nonradiographic axial SpA, objective evidence of inflammation) and monitoring, and with patient management in the event of treatment failure or disease remission. Finally, recommendation 15 is about surgical treatments.

CONCLUSION

This update incorporates recent data into a smaller number of more simply formulated recommendations, with the goal of facilitating their use for guiding the management of patients with SpA.