Inflammatory Back Pain

Differentiating Psoriatic Arthritis from Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Narrative Review and Guide for Advanced Practice Providers

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects multiple organ systems and is characterized by skin and joint manifestations. PsA is frequently undiagnosed and/or misdiagnosed, especially because of the similarities in clinical presentation shared with other arthritic diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). An accurate and timely diagnosis of PsA is crucial to prevent delays in optimal treatment, which can lead to irreversible joint damage and increased functional disability. Patients are usually seen by a number of different healthcare providers on their path to a diagnosis of PsA, including advanced practice providers (APPs). This review provides a comprehensive overview of the characteristic features that can be used to facilitate the differentiation of PsA from RA and OA. Detailed information on clinical manifestations, biomarkers, radiologic features, and therapeutic recommendations for PsA included here can be applied in routine clinical settings to provide APPs with the confidence and knowledge to recognize and refer patients more accurately to rheumatologists for management of patients with PsA.

Axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis: An update for rheumatologists

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogenous, chronic, inflammatory musculoskeletal disease that can lead to peripheral and axial damage and loss of function. Axial involvement occurs in 25% to 70% of patients with PsA, varying greatly depending on its definition, with the key manifestations being sacroiliitis and/or spondylitis. However, there are no agreed-upon classification or diagnostic criteria for axial involvement in PsA and no consensus on treatment paradigms, which complicates management of PsA. There have only been a few studies assessing biologics in patients with PsA with axial involvement, and most treatment plans are based on evidence from patients with axial spondyloarthritis. Rheumatologists therefore face many challenges in the management of axial PsA, including diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and choice of appropriate treatment. In this review, we summarize the clinical presentation, imaging characteristics, differential diagnoses, treatment options, and prognosis of axial PsA, with the aim of increasing rheumatologists' knowledge of this phenotype of PsA and thereby aiding its optimal management.

Axial spondyloarthritis: new advances in diagnosis and management

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is an inflammatory disease of the axial skeleton associated with significant pain and disability. Previously, the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis required advanced changes on plain radiographs of the sacroiliac joints. Classification criteria released in 2009, however, identified a subset of patients, under the age of 45, with back pain for more than three months in the absence of radiographic sacroiliitis who were classified as axSpA based on a positive magnetic resonance imaging or HLAB27 positivity and specific clinical features. This subgroup was labeled non-radiographic (nr)-axSpA. These patients, compared with those identified by the older New York criteria, contained a larger percentage of women and demonstrated less structural damage. However, their clinical manifestations and response to biologics were similar to radiographic axSpA. The discovery of the interleukin (IL) IL-23/IL-17 pathway revealed key molecules involved in the pathophysiology of axSpA. This discovery propelled the generation of antibodies directed toward IL-17A, which are highly effective and demonstrate treatment responses in axSpA that are similar to those observed with anti-TNF agents. The finding that agents that block IL-23 were not effective in axSpA came as a surprise and the potential underlying mechanisms underlying this lack of response are discussed. New agents with dual inhibition of the IL-17A and F isoforms and some oral small molecule agents that target the Jak-STAT pathway, have also shown efficacy in axSpA.

Evaluating Inflammatory Versus Mechanical Back Pain in Individuals with Psoriatic Arthritis: A Review of the Literature

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic immune-mediated disease characterized by psoriatic skin and nail changes, peripheral joint inflammation, enthesitis, dactylitis, and/or axial involvement, either alone or in combination with each other. The presence of axial involvement has been shown to be a marker of PsA severity; however, there is no widely accepted definition of axial involvement in PsA (axPsA) or consensus on how or when to screen and treat patients with suspected axPsA. Chronic back pain is a prominent feature of axPsA and is thought to have a relevant role in early identification of disease. Chronic back pain can be caused by inflammatory back pain (IBP) or mechanical back pain (MBP). However, MBP can complicate recognition of IBP and delay diagnosis of axPsA. While MBP can also be associated with chronic back pain of ≥ 3 months in duration that is typical of IBP, IBP is characterized by inflammation of the sacroiliac joint and lower spine that is differentiated from MBP by key characteristic features, including insidious onset at age < 40 years, improvement with exercise but not with rest, and nighttime pain. This review discusses the differences in identification and management of IBP and MBP in patients with PsA with axPsA. The summary of available evidence highlights the importance of appropriate and timely screening, difficulties and limitations of differential diagnoses and treatment, and unmet needs in axPsA.

Diagnostic clinical prediction rules for specific subtypes of low back pain: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To identify diagnostic clinical prediction rules (CPRs) for low back pain (LBP) and to assess their readiness for clinical application.

BACKGROUND

Significant research has been invested into the development of CPRs that may assist in the meaningful subgrouping of patients with LBP. To date, very little is known about diagnostic forms of CPRs for LBP, which relate to the present status or classification of an individual, and whether they have been developed sufficiently to enable their application in clinical practice.

METHODS

A sensitive electronic search strategy using 7 databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Two independent reviewers identified relevant studies for inclusion using a 2-stage selection process. The quality appraisal of included studies was conducted by 2 independent raters using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and checklists composed of accepted methodological standards for the development of CPRs.

RESULTS

Of 10 014 studies screened for eligibility, the search identified that 13 diagnostic CPRs for LBP have been derived. Among those, 1 tool for identifying lumbar spinal stenosis and 2 tools for identifying inflammatory back pain have undergone validation. No impact analysis studies were identified.

CONCLUSION

Most diagnostic CPRs for LBP are in their initial development phase and cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice at this time. Validation and impact analysis of the diagnostic CPRs identified in this review are warranted, particularly for those tools that meet an identified unmet need of clinicians who manage patients with LBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnosis, level 2a-.