Prediction of Treatment Response According to ASAS-EULAR Management Recommendations in 1 Year for Hip Involvement in Axial Spondyloarthritis Based on MRI and Clinical Indicators

BACKGROUND

To predict the treatment response for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with hip involvement in 1 year based on MRI and clinical indicators.

METHODS

A total of 77 axSpA patients with hip involvement (60 males; median age, 25 years; interquartile, 22-31 years old) were treated with a drug recommended by the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the European League Against Rheumatism (ASAS-EULAR) management. They were prospectively enrolled according to Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria. Clinical indicators, including age, gender, disease duration, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), were collected at baseline and in 3 months to 1-year follow-up. Treatment response was evaluated according to ASAS response criteria. MRI indicators consisting of bone marrow edema (BME) in acetabulum and femoral head, hip effusion, fat deposition, thickened synovium, bone erosion, bone proliferation, muscle involvement, enthesitis and bony ankylosis were assessed at baseline. Spearman's correlation analysis was utilized for indicator selection. The selected clinical and MRI indicators were integrated with previous clinical knowledge to develop multivariable logistic regression models. Receiver operator characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess the performance of the constructed models.

RESULTS

The model combining MR indicators comprising hip effusion, BME in acetabulum and femoral head and clinical indicators consisting of disease duration, ESR and CRP yielded AUC values of 0.811 and 0.753 for the training and validation cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The model combining MRI and clinical indicators could predict treatment response for axSpA with hip involvement in 1 year.

Assessing the effect of interventions for axial spondyloarthritis according to the endorsed ASAS/OMERACT core outcome set: a meta-research study of trials included in Cochrane reviews

The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) has defined core sets for (i) symptom-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SM-ARD), (ii) clinical record keeping, and (iii) disease-controlling anti-rheumatic therapy (DC-ART). These include the following domains for all three core sets: “physical function,” “pain,” “spinal mobility,” “spinal stiffness,” and “patient’s global assessment” (PGA). The core set for clinical record keeping further includes the domains “peripheral joints/entheses” and “acute phase reactants,” and the core set for DC-ART further includes the domains “fatigue” and “spine radiographs/hip radiographs.” The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) endorsed the core sets in 1998.

Using empirical evidence from axSpA trials, we investigated the efficacy (i.e., net benefit) according to the ASAS/OMERACT core outcome set for axSpA across all interventions tested in trials included in subsequent Cochrane reviews. For all continuous scales, we combined data using the standardized mean difference (SMD) to meta-analyze outcomes involving the same domains. Also, through meta-regression analysis, we examined the effect of the separate SMD measures (independent variables) on the primary endpoint (log [OR], dependent variable) across all trials.

Based on 11 eligible Cochrane reviews, from these, 85 articles were screened; we included 43 trials with 63 randomized comparisons. Mean (SD) number of ASAS/OMERACT core outcome domains measured for SM-ARD/physical therapy trials was 4.2 (1.7). Six trials assessed all proposed domains. Mean (SD) for number of core outcome domains for DC-ART trials was 5.8 (1.7). No trials assessed all nine domains. Eight trials (16%) were judged to have inadequate (i.e., high risk of) selective outcome reporting bias. The most responsible core domains for achieving success in meeting the primary objective per trial were pain, OR (95% CI) 5.19 (2.28, 11.77), and PGA, OR (95% CI) 1.87 (1.14, 3.07). In conclusion, selective outcome reporting (and “missing data”) should be reduced by encouraging the use of the endorsed ASAS/OMERACT outcome domains in clinical trials. Overall outcome reporting was good for SM-ARD/physical therapy trials and poor for DC-ART trials. Our findings suggest that both PGA and pain provide a valuable holistic construct for the assessment of improvement beyond more objective measures of spinal inflammation.

A quick decrease of bone marrow edema in sacroiliac joint could be served as a novel marker for dose tapering of etanercept in ankylosing spondylitis patients

The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation of bone marrow edema (BME) in sacroiliac joint (SIJ) with clinical characteristics and clinical response, and whether the quick decrease of BME could be served as a novel marker for dose tapering of etanercept in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients.Ninety active AS patients underwent etanercept treatment for 6 months were enrolled consecutively and classified into standard dose group (n = 37) and dose tapering group (n = 53). BME in SIJ and clinical response were assessed by SPARCC criteria and ASAS 40 response criteria, respectively. "Quick decrease of BME in SIJ" was defined as the decrease of SPARCC score≥50% from M0 to M1.BME in SIJ was positively correlated with pain VAS score, BASDAI score, CRP, IL-1β, IL-17, and TNF-α levels. ASAS 40 response rate at M6 was lower in dose tapering group than standard dose group, while higher in patients with a quick decrease of BME in SIJ than other patients. Besides, the ASAS 40 response rate in dose tapering group was similar to standard dose group in patients with a quick decrease of BME in SIJ but was lower than standard dose group in patients without a quick decrease of BME in SIJ at M6.A quick decrease of BME in SIJ predicts better treatment response to etanercept, and it might be served as a novel marker for dose tapering initiation of etanercept in AS patients.

Model-Based Meta-Analysis in Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Quantitative Comparison of Biologics and Small Targeted Molecules

Information on the comparative efficacy is important for drug development as well as drug therapy. Up to now, the relative efficacy of approved biologics and many agents under investigation in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are still unclear. The objective of this study was to quantify the relative efficacy and time course of various treatments measured by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Assessment Study group response criteria 20 scores (ASAS20), change from baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI). There were 34 double-blinded trials of 10 biologics and small molecules encompassing 5,339 patients with AS were included in this analysis. Three mathematical models with nonparametric placebo estimations were used to describe the longitudinal profile for the above three efficacy measures. The results detected significant differences among included treatments, and infliximab and golimumab were found to have the highest efficacy in given dosage regimens across all measures.

Effect of anti-tumor necrosis factor α treatment on radiographic progression in patient with ankylosing spondylitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF)α treatment in patient with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) had been proved by many clinical studies. Inflammation and new bone formation in spine were two pivotal aspects in AS. TNF α inhibitor could eliminate inflammation including clinical and laboratory inflammatory manifestation. Paradoxical results whether TNF α antagonist could delay radiographic progression in AS were often been reported simultaneously.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature about the effect of TNF α inhibitor on radiographic progression and disease activity in patient with AS.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search including Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2000 to 15 August 2017. Two reviewers independently supplemented with hand searching for the reference lists of inclusion. All trials focusing on radiographic progression or disease activity in patients with AS treated with anti-TNF α agents. Primary outcomes were modified Stokes AS Spinal Score (mSASSS), as well as Bath AS disease activity index (BASDAI) and Bath AS functional index (BASFI). Two reviewers independently selected studies and analyzed data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). We pooled effects recorded on different scales as Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies of low to moderate risk of bias with 3,186 patients, compared with control group, there was no effect of mSASSS changes (SMD = -0.12, 95% CI: -1.17-0.93, p value = .82, I² = 95%) and follow-up (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI: 0.21-0.26, p value = .82, I² = 36%) estimation in anti-TNF α group. However anti-TNF α agent treatment led to remarkable improvements on both Bath AS disease activity index (BASDAI) (SMD = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.22-1.89, p value = .01, I² = 96%) and Bath AS functional index (BASFI) (SMD = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.24-1.92, p value = .01, I² = 97%) scores at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis found no significant effect on delaying radiographic progression in AS treated with TNF α inhibitor, although TNF α inhibitor could do improve significantly disease activity and physical function in AS.

Practical Aspects of Biological Throught Levels and Antidrug Antibodies in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Spondyloarthritis

OBJECTIVES

Issue recommendations on practical aspects of the monitoring of levels of biological drugs that may be useful for rheumatologists.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies in which drug and anti-drug antibody levels were determined in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) to study whether they could predict different outcomes. In light of the results of the review, a group of experts discussed under what circumstances testing biological drug levels and their antibodies could be useful. The discussion resulted in a series of clinical questions that were answered with the scientific evidence collected, and in algorithms that facilitate decision making.

RESULTS

It was established that the determination of drug levels can be especially useful in two clinical situations, on treatment failure (primary or secondary) and on sustained remission. It is also reviewed which laboratory technique and timing for sample drawing are the most suitable for the measurement. Recommendations are issued on the interpretation of drug levels and on factors to be taken into account (for example, body mass index and disease modifying drugs).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based algorithms and guidelines have been established to test drug levels and anti-drug antibodies in patients with RA and SpA, which can help clinical decision making.

Etanercept concentration and immunogenicity do not influence the response to Etanercept in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship of clinical response of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) to etanercept (ETN) with ETN levels, and the presence of anti-drug antibodies to ETN (ADAb).

METHODS

Prospective study of JIA patients under 18 years old. Clinical and pharmacological data were collected at two visits. JIA clinical inactivity and activity were assessed according to the Wallace criteria and to the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS). ETN and ADAb serum levels assessments were determined using ELISA-based assays.

RESULTS

126 patients were enrolled. The median duration of ETN treatment at inclusion was 569 days (range 53-2340). ADAb were undetectable (<10 ng/ml) in 171/218 (78%) samples and were > 25 ng/mL in 2/218 samples. No significant relationship between ETN concentration and the clinical inactivity status and JIA activity was found using either univariate logistic regression or multiple logistic regression analysis, adjusted on one individual descriptors, time since diagnosis, time of sampling, use of corticosteroids or methotrexate and classification of JIA. No correlation was found between the remission status and the detection of ADAb.

CONCLUSION

This study did not demonstrate any correlation between JIA activity and circulating ETN levels in a large population of patients with JIA previously treated with ETN for at least 1.5 months. As described for adults, our study confirms that ETN is marginally immunogenic in pediatric patients. These results do not support the clinical usefulness of a monitoring of ADAb or ETN concentrations for the management of this group of JIA patients if they fail to achieve clinical inactive disease.

Etanercept for treating axial spondyloarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Axial spondyloarthritis is an inflammatory rheumatic disease causing back pain, functional impairment and potential ankylosis in the advanced stage. In this context, TNF blockers have been a major therapeutic advance. Etanercept is a soluble recombinant TNF receptor fusion protein in this vain. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to summarize the current published data concerning the efficacy and tolerance of etanercept in axial spondyloarthrits. The authors performed a systematic review on PubMed, using 'etanercept' and 'spondyloarthritis', 'axial spondyloarthritis' or 'ankylosing spondylitis' keywords. Expert opinion: Etanercept showed clinical efficacy on the axial (non-radiographic and radiographic) and peripheral manifestations (peripheral arthritis and enthesitis) of axial spondyloarthritis (Ax-SpA). Among the extra-articular manifestations, it works on psoriasis but not on inflammatory bowel disease, with a lack of efficacy data in anterior uveitis. Etanercept also demonstrated an interesting tolerance profile and good drug survival rates after 5 years. Etanercept was also shown to reduce MRI inflammation on the spine and the sacroiliac joints. However, like other TNF blockers, its impact on radiographic progression could not be fully demonstrated. In the context of upcoming new biologic targeted treatments, head-to-head and longer-term randomized controlled trials are now required to further define the role of etanercept in spondyloarthritis treatment strategies.

DOSAGE AND DURATION OF ETANERCEPT THERAPY FOR ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: A META-ANALYSIS

Objectives: We conducted a meta-analysis of recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to identify the most effective and safe etanercept dosing regimen and duration of therapy for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

Methods: We systematically reviewed PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for RCTs. The proportion of patients attaining 20 percent improvement (according to the Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria [ASAS 20]) was evaluated as a primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included 50 percent increase in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI 50) used for evaluating efficacy, as well as the BASDAI/Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) scores and adverse events.

Results: ASAS 20 indicated that the efficacy of etanercept did not differ amongst dosing regimens (25 mg twice-weekly versus 50 mg once-weekly: relative risk [RR], 2.18, 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.78–2.67 versus RR, 2.00, 95 percent CI, 1.70–2.37). The ASAS 20 reported subgroup differences among treatment durations of less than 12 weeks (RR, 2.70; 95 percent CI, 2.09–3.49); 12 weeks (RR, 1.74; 95 percent CI, 1.37–2.22); and more than 12 weeks (RR, 2.56; 95 percent CI, 1.88–3.48). Other outcomes included BASDAI, BASDAI 50, and BASFI. Drug safety differed according to the treatment regimen and duration.

Conclusion: Our meta-analysis found that there was no significant efficacy difference between 50 mg once-weekly and 25 mg twice-weekly dosing for the treatment of AS, and a dosing duration of less than 12 weeks was more effective for treating AS patients.

Comparative Effectiveness of Biologic Therapy Regimens for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and a Network Meta-Analysis

To establish the comparative effectiveness of all available biologic therapy regimens for ankylosing spondylitis, we performed a systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception of each database to June 2015. Systematic review and network meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses. The primary outcome was 20% improvement of Assessments in SpondyloArthritis International Society Response Criteria (ASAS20) at Week 12 or 14; secondary outcomes were ASAS40, ASAS5/6, ASAS partial remission and 50% improvement in baseline Bath ankylosing spondylitis (AS) disease activity index. We reported relative risks and 95% confidence intervals from direct meta-analysis and 95% credible intervals from Bayesian network meta-analysis, and ranked the treatment for outcomes. We also used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria to appraise quality of evidence. Fourteen RCTs comprising 2672 active AS patients were included in the network meta-analysis. Most biologic therapy regimens were more effective than placebo regarding all the outcomes assessed, except for secukinumab and tocilizumab. No differences between biologic therapies in the treatment of AS could be found, except for the finding that infliximab 5 mg was superior to tocilizumab. Infliximab 5 mg/kg had the highest probability of being ranked the best for achieving ASAS20, whereas notably, secukinumab had the highest probability of being ranked the second best. Our study suggests that no differences between biologic therapies in the treatment of AS could be found except that infliximab 5 mg was superior to tocilizumab. Infliximab 5 mg/kg seems to be the better biologic therapy regimen for AS. Secukinumab appears promising, though additional data is warranted. Nevertheless, these interpretations should be accepted very cautiously.

Biologics in spondyloarthritis: TNFα inhibitors and other agents

TNFα inhibitors are currently the only class of biological agent that has proven to be effective in the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis and/or spondyloarthritis (SpA). These agents have been shown to control inflammatory pain of the axial skeleton, peripheral clinical manifestations, certain extra-articular manifestations as well as systemic and spinal MRI inflammation. Conversely, they are unable to slow radiographic progression in the spine. Since around 20-30% of patients with SpA are considered as nonmajor responders to TNFα inhibitors, there is a need for alternative therapies. Biological agents that target IL-1, IL-6, B cells and costimulatory pathways are not effective in SpA. Conversely, novel biological agents blocking IL-23 or IL-17 are promising in SpA, especially secukinumab, an anti-IL-17A monoclonal antibody.

Is Etanercept 25 mg Once Weekly as Effective as 50 mg at Maintaining Response in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis? A Randomized Control Trial

Objective.

To investigate, in a pilot randomized controlled trial, whether etanercept (ETN) 25 mg once weekly is effective at maintaining a clinical response in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who have responded to the standard 50 mg dose.

Methods.

Adults with AS not responding to conventional therapies were prescribed ETN 50 mg once weekly for 6 months. Responders as defined by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) were randomly assigned to taper to 25 mg once weekly or continue on 50 mg and followed for a further 6 months. The primary outcome measure was maintenance of a 50% reduction in the BASDAI or fall in BASDAI by ≥ 2 units and a ≥ 2-unit reduction in BASDAI spinal pain as measured on a 10-point visual analog scale at 6 months postrandomization.

Results.

Of 89 patients assessed for eligibility, 59 were enrolled; 47 (80%) had sufficient clinical response and were eligible for randomization, 24 were assigned to continue receiving ETN 50 mg, and 23 to taper to 25 mg. After 6 months, 20 (83%) of the 50 mg arm maintained clinical response compared with 12 (52%) of the 25 mg arm (a difference of −31%, 95% CI −58% – −5%).

Conclusion.

Although this pilot study demonstrates that treatment with ETN 25 mg was less effective at maintaining treatment response in the stepdown phase, 52% of participants maintained treatment response. Future research should address which patients are suitable for tapering.

TNF-alpha inhibitors for ankylosing spondylitis

BACKGROUND

TNF (tumor necrosis factor)-alpha inhibitors block a key protein in the inflammatory chain reaction responsible for joint inflammation, pain, and damage in ankylosing spondylitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and harms of adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, and infliximab (TNF-alpha inhibitors) in people with ankylosing spondylitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to January 26, 2009: MEDLINE (from 1966); EMBASE (from 1980); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2008, Issue 4); ACP Journal Club; CINAHL (from 1982); and ISI Web of Knowledge (from 1900). We ran updated searches in May 2012, October 2013, and in June 2014 for McMaster PLUS. We searched major regulatory agencies for safety warnings and clinicaltrials.gov for registered trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab to placebo, other drugs or usual care in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, reported in abstract or full-text.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed search results, risk of bias, and extracted data. We conducted Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analyses using WinBUGS software. To investigate a class-effect of harms across biologics, we pooled harms data using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

We included twenty-one, short-term (24 weeks or less) RCTs with a total of 3308 participants; 18 contributed data to the MTC analysis: adalimumab (4 studies), etanercept (8 studies), golimumab (2 studies), infliximab (3 studies), and one head-to-head study (etanercept versus infliximab) which was unblinded and considered at a higher risk of bias. The risk of selection and detection bias was low or unclear for most of the studies. The risk of selective outcome reporting was low for most studies as they reported on outcomes recommended by the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society. We found little heterogeneity and no significant inconsistency in the MTC analyses. The majority of the studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most studies permitted concomitant therapy of stable doses of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or corticosteroids, but allowances varied across studies.Compared with placebo, there was high quality evidence that patients on an anti-TNF agent were three to four times more likely to achieve an ASAS40 response (assessing spinal pain, function, and inflammation, as measured by the mean of intensity and duration of morning stiffness, and patient global assessment) by six months (adalimumab: risk ratio (RR) 3.53, 95% credible interval (Crl) 2.49 to 4.91; etanercept: RR 3.31, 95% Crl 2.38 to 4.53; golimumab: RR 2.90, 95% Crl 1.90 to 4.23; infliximab: RR 4.07, 95% Crl 2.80 to 5.74, with a 25% to 40% absolute difference between treatment and placebo groups. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve an ASAS 40 response ranged from 3 to 5.There was high quality evidence of improvement in physical function on a 0 to 10 scale (adalimumab: mean difference (MD) -1.6, 95% Crl -2.2 to -0.9; etanercept: MD -1.1, 95% CrI -1.6 to -0.6; golimumab: MD -1.5, 95% Crl -2.3 to -0.7; infliximab: MD -2.1, 95% Crl -2.7 to -1.4, with an 11% to 21% absolute difference between treatment and placebo groups. The NNT to achieve the minimally clinically important difference of 0.7 points ranged from 2 to 4.Compared with placebo, there was moderate quality evidence (downgraded for imprecision) that patients on an anti-TNF agent were more likely to achieve an ASAS partial remission by six months (adalimumab: RR 6.28, 95% Crl 3.13 to 12.78; etanercept: RR 4.24, 95% Crl 2.31 to 8.09; golimumab: RR 5.18, 95% Crl 1.90 to 14.79; infliximab: RR 15.41, 95% Crl 5.09 to 47.98 with a 10% to 44% absolute difference between treatment and placebo groups. The NNT to achieve an ASAS partial remission response ranged from 3 to 11.There was low to moderate level evidence of a greater reduction in spinal inflammation as measured by magnetic resonance imaging though the absolute differences were small and the clinical relevance of the difference was unclear: adalimumab (1 trial; -6% (95% confidence interval (CI) -12% to 0.05%); 1 trial: 53.6% mean decrease from baseline versus 9.4% mean increase in the placebo group), golimumab (1 trial; -2.5%, (95% CI -5.6% to -0.7%)), and infliximab (1 trial; -3% (95% CI -4% to -2.4%)).Radiographic progression was measured in one trial (N = 60) of etanercept versus placebo and it found that radiologic changes were similar in both groups (detailed data not provided).There were few events of withdrawals due to adverse events leading to imprecision around the estimates. When all the anti-TNF agents were combined against placebo, there was moderate quality evidence from 16 studies of an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events in the anti-TNF group (Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.72; total events: 38/1637 in biologic group; 7/986 in placebo) though the absolute increase in harm was small (1%; 95% CI 0% to 2%).Due to low event rates, evidence of the effect of individual TNF-inhibitors against placebo or for all four biologics pooled together versus placebo on serious adverse events is inconclusive (moderate quality; downgraded for imprecision). For all anti-TNF pooled versus placebo based on 16 studies: Peto OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.48; 51/1530 in biologic group; 18/878 in placebo; absolute difference: 1% (95% CI 0% to 2%).Using indirect comparison methodology, and one head-to-head study of etanercept versus infliximab, wide confidence intervals meant that results were inconclusive for evidence of differences in the major outcomes between different anti-TNF agents. Regulatory agencies have published warnings about rare adverse events of serious infections, including tuberculosis, malignancies and lymphoma.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate to high quality evidence that anti-TNF agents improve clinical symptoms in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. More participants withdrew due to adverse events when on an anti-TNF agent but we did not find evidence of an increase in serious adverse events, though event rates were low and trials had a short duration. The short-term toxicity profile appears acceptable. Based on indirect comparison methodology, we are uncertain whether there are differences between anti-TNF agents in terms of the key benefit or harm outcomes.

Lower etanercept levels are associated with high disease activity in ankylosing spondylitis patients at 24 weeks of follow-up

BACKGROUND

Previous data have shown that etanercept levels are associated with clinical response in rheumatoid arthritis. However, for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), data regarding this topic are inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the relationship between etanercept levels and clinical response in patients with AS.

METHODS

Observational prospective cohort study of 162 patients with AS =treated with etanercept, monitored during 24 weeks of treatment. Etanercept trough levels were determined, retrospectively, using an ELISA. Disease activity was measured using AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), including C-reactive protein (CRP) and Bath AS Disease Activity index (BASDAI). Active disease was defined as ASDAS≥2.1. Since etanercept is a drug administered at home there might have been some variation in trough level sampling.

RESULTS

At 24 weeks etanercept levels were significantly higher in patients with ASDAS<2.1, (3.8 mg/L; IQR 2.5-5.2) compared with patients with ASDAS≥2.1 (2.3 mg/L; IQR 1.2-3.4; p≤0.001). Generalised estimating equation analysis demonstrated a statistically significant association between etanercept levels and ASDAS, BASDAI, CRP and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (all p<0.001). When patients were categorised into quartiles according to etanercept levels, the lowest quartile (etanercept<1.80 mg/L) comprised 35% of all patients with ASDAS≥2.1 while the highest quartile comprised only 14%.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease activity and inflammation are associated with etanercept levels in patients with AS at 24 weeks of treatment. Measuring etanercept levels might help in identifying overtreatment and undertreatment and optimise etanercept therapy in AS.

Recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) on the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis

The management of spondyloarthritis is challenging and has changed with the development of new concepts and treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To develop practice guidelines for the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis (including psoriatic arthritis), by updating previous national and international recommendations, based on a review of recently published data.

METHODS

A task force and a multidisciplinary literature review group were established. The task force identified the issues that remained unresolved. Based on existing recommendations and recent publications, the task force developed practice guidelines, which were revised by the literature review group and graded according to AGREE.

RESULTS

Practice guidelines for the management of spondyloarthritis are reported. After a review of the general diagnostic principles, 30 practice guidelines are given: 5 on general principles, 4 on the management strategy, 5 on non-pharmacological treatments, 7 on conventional pharmacological treatments, 6 on biotherapies, and 3 on surgical treatments and follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The updated practice guidelines reported here constitute a global framework that can guide physicians in the everyday management of spondyloarthritis.

Long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis

To date, anti-tumor necrosis factor alfa (anti-TNF-α) therapy is the only alternative to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. Etanercept is a soluble TNF receptor, with a mode of action and pharmacokinetics different to those of antibodies and distinctive efficacy and safety. Etanercept has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, with or without radiographic sacroiliitis, and other manifestations of the disease, including peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, and psoriasis. Etanercept is not efficacious in inflammatory bowel disease, and its efficacy in the treatment of uveitis appears to be lower than that of other anti-TNF drugs. Studies of etanercept confirmed regression of bone edema on magnetic resonance imaging of the spine and sacroiliac joint, but failed to reduce radiographic progression, as do the other anti-TNF drugs. It seems that a proportion of patients remain in disease remission when the etanercept dose is reduced or administration intervals are extended. Etanercept is generally well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. The most common adverse effect of etanercept treatment is injection site reactions, which are generally self-limiting. Reactivation of tuberculosis, reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection, congestive heart failure, demyelinating neurologic disorders, hematologic disorders like aplastic anemia and pancytopenia, vasculitis, immunogenicity, and exacerbation or induction of psoriasis are class effects of all the anti-TNF drugs, and have been seen in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. However, etanercept is less likely to induce reactivation of tuberculosis than the other anti-TNF drugs and it has been suggested that etanercept might be less immunogenic, especially in ankylosing spondylitis. Acute uveitis, Crohn's disease, and sarcoidosis are other adverse events that have been rarely associated with etanercept therapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

[How to optimize the antiTNF alpha therapy in spondylitis?]

TNFalpha inhibitors have been a major advance in the treatment of spondyloarthropathies, having demonstrated their safety and efficacy, with higher response and survival rates than those observed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The fact that disease modifying anti-arthritic drugs (DMARD) have shown utility in the treatment of this disease, especially in the axial forms, gives them greater importance, since it is known that up to 30%of patients do not respond to treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. However, we must take into account that these drugs are expensive and not without side effects, so it is necessary to optimize their use. We intend to review the use of antiTNF alpha in spondyloarthropathies and review the available evidence on strategies that can help with their rational use.