A randomized controlled trial to study the efficacy of sulfasalazine for axial disease in ankylosing spondylitis

Short-Term Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Sulfasalazine in the Management of Axial Spondyloarthropathy

INTRODUCTION

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is an inflammatory spondyloarthropathy that involves the sacroiliac joints and the axial skeleton. Sulfasalazine's efficacy in treating the axial symptoms of AS has been a subject of controversy.

METHODS

This prospective observational study recruited AS patients and categorized them into two groups: the first group had AS for less than or equal to four years and the second group had AS for more than four years. Erythrocytic sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were recorded at baseline and at six-month follow-up. Disease severity was assessed using the ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS), Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI) score, and Bath ankylosing spondylitis functional index (BASFI) score.

RESULTS

A total of 33 patients diagnosed with AS were recruited in this study, mostly males (88%) and within 21-30 years of age. ESR and CRP values were measured at baseline and at six months post-treatment with sulfasalazine. Mean ESR and mean CRP values showed a statistically significant reduction of 43.5% (p=0.001) and 58.45% (p=0.0012) respectively, at the 6-month follow-up. Four patients (12.12%) reported gastrointestinal intolerance. The mean reduction in the ASDAS score was 24% (p=0.002), the BASDAI score was 40.08% (p=0.001), and the BASFI score was 39.54% (p=0.01). Additionally, the duration of symptoms did not appear to influence with efficacy of sulfasalazine.

DISCUSSION

Sulfasalazine is a safe alternative therapy for patients with AS who cannot afford biologics, due to its reasonable short-term efficacy, good tolerability, cost-effective nature, and low incidence of adverse effects.

Cause analysis of conversion to biologics in spondyloarthritis patients with poor response to conventional treatment

OBJECTIVE

We sought to investigate the reasons why spondyloarthritis (SpA) patients failed to respond to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) and the influences of different initial cDMARDs on the likelihood of a switch to biologics.

METHODS

SpA patients were divided into a conventional drug maintenance group and a biologics conversion group to determine the causes of conversion to biologics. Then, we divided all patients into three groups according to different initial cDMARDs, NSAID monotherapy, NSAID + (sulfasalazine or thalidomide) double combination, and NSAID + sulfasalazine + thalidomide triple combination therapy groups, to clarify the influence of initial treatment on later conversion to biologics.

RESULTS

This study includes 202 patients, including 97 patients in the conventional drug maintenance group and 105 patients in the biologics conversion group. The mean age of the conventional drug maintenance group was higher than that of the biologics conversion group (40.8 ± 14.3 vs. 33.8 ± 12.3 years, P < 0.05). Uveitis (OR 5.356, P < 0.05) is positively correlated with conversion to biological therapy, while age (OR 0.940, P < 0.05) is negatively correlated. The proportion of NSAID monotherapy, double combination, and triple combination groups converted to biological agents was 80%, 51.1%, and 23.2%, respectively (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Age and uveitis are related to conversion to biologics therapy. The early combination of sulfasalazine and thalidomide with NSAIDs may lower the probability of conversion to biologics therapy in the later stage and offer a new option for patients with limited use of biologics in SpA patients. Key Points • Patients' move to biologics may be caused mostly by inadequate disease control by conventional oral medications. • Regardless of axial vs. peripheral joint involvement, combination drug therapy was superior to single drug therapy in controlling SpA and decreasing the probability of conversion to a biological agent. • For SpA patients who are not candidates for biologics due to contraindications or other reasons, early combination application of NSAIDs, sulfasalazine, and thalidomide may be a new choice.

Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) comprises a spectrum of chronic inflammatory manifestations affecting the axial skeleton and represents a challenge for diagnosis and treatment. Our objective was to generate a set of evidence-based recommendations for the management of axSpA for physicians, health professionals, rheumatologists and policy decision makers in Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology (PANLAR) countries. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation-ADOLOPMENT methodology was used to adapt existing recommendations after performing an independent systematic search and synthesis of the literature to update the evidence. A working group consisting of rheumatologists, epidemiologists and patient representatives from countries within the Americas prioritized 13 topics relevant to the context of these countries for the management of axSpA. This Evidence-Based Guideline article reports 13 recommendations addressing therapeutic targets, the use of NSAIDs and glucocorticoids, treatment with DMARDs (including conventional synthetic, biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs), therapeutic failure, optimization of the use of biologic DMARDs, the use of drugs for extra-musculoskeletal manifestations of axSpA, non-pharmacological interventions and the follow-up of patients with axSpA.

Comparison of biologics and small-molecule drugs in axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background: Biologics and small-molecule drugs have become increasingly accepted worldwide in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), including ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). However, a quantitative multiple comparison of their efficacy and safety is lacking. This study aims to provide an integrated assessment of the relative benefits and safety profiles of these drugs in axSpA treatment. Methods: We included randomized clinical trials that compared biologics and small-molecule drugs in the treatment of axSpA patients. The primary outcomes assessed were efficacy, including the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) improvement of 20% (ASAS20) and 40% (ASAS40). Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve value and ranking plot to evaluate and rank clinical outcomes and safety profiles of different treatments. The two-dimensional graphs were illustrated to visually assess both the efficacy (horizontal axis) and safety (vertical axis) of each intervention. Results: Our analysis included 57 randomized clinical trials involving a total of 11,787 axSpA patients. We found that seven drugs (TNFRFc, TNFmAb, IL17Ai, IL17A/Fi, IL17RAi, JAK1/3i, and JAK1i) were significantly more effective in achieving ASAS20 response compared to the placebo (PLA). Except for IL17RAi, these drugs were also associated with higher ASAS40 responses. TNFmAb demonstrated the highest clinical response efficacy among all the drugs. Subgroup analyses for AS and nr-axSpA patients yielded similar results. IL17A/Fi emerged as a promising choice, effectively balancing efficacy and safety, as indicated by its position in the upper right corner of the two-dimensional graphs. Conclusion: Our findings highlight TNFmAb as the most effective biologic across all evaluated efficacy outcomes in this network meta-analysis. Meanwhile, IL17A/Fi stands out for its lower risk and superior performance in achieving a balance between efficacy and safety in the treatment of axSpA patients.

Do Tofacitinib Generics Exhibit Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drug and Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug-Sparing Ability in the Management of Axial Spondyloarthritis?

INTRODUCTION

Tofacitinib has emerged as a therapeutic option for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) following successful clinical trials. The evidence on the efficacy of tofacitinib generics in the management of axSpA is limited. In India, the usage of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) is commonplace in the management of axSpA. Our primary aim was to identify the csDMARD and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-sparing role of tofacitinib generics in an axSpA population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study in a real-world clinical setting. Data from nine rheumatology centers across India were analyzed for 168 patients with active axSpA who were initiated on generic tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily in conjunction with csDMARDs and NSAIDs, over a duration of six months. Our primary outcome was to evaluate the csDMARD and NSAID-sparing effect of tofacitinib generics, while the secondary outcome assessed safety profiles and efficacy at six months.

RESULTS

The median Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) score of the study population was 3.91 (3.26, 4.56). Alongside tofacitinib generics, 121 (72%) patients were co-administered csDMARDs (methotrexate/sulfasalazine/both), and 90 (53.6%) patients were co-administered NSAIDs. The csDMARD, NSAID, and combined csDMARD + NSAID-sparing effects of tofacitinib generics were seen in 85 (50.6%), 156 (92.9%), and 81 (48.2%) patients, respectively. Adverse events were mild and well-tolerated. At six months, 124 (57.9%) patients had attained clinically important improvement in ASDAS ESR score, and the median decrease in ASDAS ESR score was 2.02 (1.18, 2.96).

CONCLUSION

This real-world study provides evidence supporting the csDMARD and NSAID-sparing ability of tofacitinib generics in the treatment of axSpA. Tofacitinib generics displayed a good safety profile and showed signals of efficacy as well.

Korean treatment recommendations for patients with axial spondyloarthritis

We aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for treating axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) in Korea. The development committee was constructed, key clinical questions were determined, and the evidence was searched through online databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, KoreaMed, and Kmbase. Systematic literature reviews were conducted, quality of evidence was determined, and draft recommendations were formulated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. Recommendations that reached 80% consensus among a voting panel were finalized. Three principles and 21 recommendations were determined. Recommendations 1 and 2 pertain to treatment strategies, regular disease status assessment, and rheumatologist-steered multidisciplinary management. Recommendations 3 and 4 strongly recommend patient education, exercise, and smoking cessation. Recommendations 5-12 address pharmacological treatment of active disease using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoids, sulfasalazine, biologics, and Janus kinase inhibitors. Recommendations 13-16 address treatment in stable disease. We suggest against spa and acupuncture as therapies (Recommendation 17). Recommendations 18 and 19 pertain to total hip arthroplasty and spinal surgery. Monitoring of comorbidities and drug toxicities are recommended (Recommendations 20 and 21). Recommendations for axSpA treatment in a Korean context were developed based on comprehensive clinical questions and evidence. These are intended to guide best practice in the treatment of axSpA.

Advances in pharmacotherapies for axial spondyloarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) refers to an inflammatory rheumatic disease that mainly affects the axial skeleton and leads to progressive radiographic changes of the sacroiliac joints and spine. axSpA is currently subdivided into the radiographic (r-axSpA) and non-radiographic (nr-axSpA) form. Both forms are associated with musculoskeletal pain, restriction of spinal mobility, specific extra-musculoskeletal manifestations, and overall, altered quality of life. The therapeutic management of axSpA is currently well standardized.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed available literature (by using PubMed search) on non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options that may be used in axSpA, including r-axSpA and nr-axSpA, as well as the role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), biological agents including TNFalpha (TNFi) and IL-17 (IL-17i) inhibitors. New treatment options such as Janus kinase inhibitors are also reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

NSAIDs remain the mainstay of initial therapy, and subsequently, biological agents (TNFi and IL-17i) may be envisaged. Four TNFi are licensed for the treatment of both r-axSpA and nr-axSpA, while IL-17i are approved in each indication. The choice between a TNFi and an IL-17i is mainly guided by the presence of extra-articular manifestations. JAKi were more recently introduced for the treatment of r-axSpA, but their use is restricted to specific patients with a safe cardiovascular profile.

Korean treatment recommendations for patients with axial spondyloarthritis

We aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for treating axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) in Korea. The development committee was constructed, key clinical questions were determined, and the evidence was searched through online databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, KoreaMed, and KMbase. Systematic literature reviews were conducted, quality of evidence was determined, and draft recommendations were formulated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. Recommendations that reached 80% consensus among a voting panel were finalized. Three principles and 21 recommendations were determined. Recommendations 1 and 2 pertain to treatment strategies, regular disease status assessment, and rheumatologist-steered multidisciplinary management. Recommendations 3 and 4 strongly recommend patient education, exercise, and smoking cessation. Recommendations 5~12 address pharmacological treatment of active disease using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoids, sulfasalazine, biologics, and Janus kinase inhibitors. Recommendations 13~16 address treatment in stable disease. We suggest against spa and acupuncture as therapies (Recommendation 17). Recommendations 18 and 19 pertain to total hip arthroplasty and spinal surgery. Monitoring of comorbidities and drug toxicities are recommended (Recommendations 20 and 21). Recommendations for axSpA treatment in a Korean context were developed based on comprehensive clinical questions and evidence. These are intended to guide best practice in the treatment of axSpA.

Efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and non-biological interventions: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To update the evidence of non-biological treatments for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), as a basis for the 2022 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ASAS-EULAR) recommendations for the management of axSpA.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (2016-2021) on efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and non-biological pharmacological treatments was performed, up to 1 January 2022. The research question was formulated according to the PICO format: Population: adult patients with r-axSpA and nr-axSpA; Intervention: non-pharmacological and non-biological pharmacological treatments; Comparator: active comparator or placebo; Outcomes: all relevant efficacy and safety outcomes. Type of studies included were: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies (for efficacy of non-pharmacological treatments, and safety), qualitative studies. Cohen's effect size (ES) was calculated for non-pharmacological and risk ratio (RR) for pharmacological treatments.

RESULTS

Of 107 publications included, 63 addressed non-pharmacological interventions, including education (n=8) and exercise (n=20). The ES for education on disease activity, function, mobility was small to moderate (eg. Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), ES: 0.06-0.59). Exercise had moderate to high ES on these outcomes (eg.

BASDAI, ES

0.14-1.43). Six RCTs on targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) showed efficacy of tofacitinib, upadacitinib and filgotinib (phase 2 only) in r-axSpA (range RR vs placebo for ASAS20: 1.91-3.10), while apremilast and nilotinib were not efficacious. Studies on conventional synthetic DMARDs (n=3), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, n=8) and other drugs (n=12) did not provide new evidence on efficacy/safety (efficacy of NSAIDs confirmed; limited efficacy of short-term glucocorticoids in one RCT).

CONCLUSIONS

Education, exercise and NSAIDs confirmed to be efficacious in axSpA. JAKi were proved efficacious in r-axSpA.

Effects of sulfasalazine in axial spondyloarthritis on COVID-19 outcomes: real-life data from a single center

INTRODUCTION

Compared to biological agents, little is known about the impact of sulfasalazine therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis (AxSpA). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the COVID-19 severity in AxSpAs receiving sulfasalazine and biologic-agent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 219 SARS-CoV-2 positive AxSpA patients were retrospectively analyzed. COVID-19 pneumonia, hospitalization rate, and length of stay were used to determine COVID-19 severity. AxSpA patients were mainly grouped and compared as sulfasalazine and non-sulfasalazine. Afterward, we excluded no-treatment patients to reveal the drug's effects more clearly and regrouped AxSpA patients as sulfasalazine-monotherapy (34.3%), biologic-monotherapy (33.7%), and sulfasalazine + biologic (7.3%).

RESULTS

Fifty-nine percent of the patients were male and the mean age was 45.0 years. Peripheral arthritis was 35% and uveitis 15%. In total, 41.5% of them have received sulfasalazine and 41.0% biologic agents, and the remaining patients with no AxSpA-specific treatment. In the first comparison, the sulfasalazine group had a higher age, more frequent COVID-19 pneumonia, hospitalization, and longer hospitalization than a non-sulfasalazine group. In the pairwise comparison of 3 treatment groups, the demographic and clinical features, the hospitalization rate and the length of hospital stay were similar but the sulfasalazine-monotherapy group had a higher frequency of COVID-19 pneumonia than the biologic-monotherapy group (23% vs. 7%, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Our results imply sulfasalazine may be related to more severe COVID-19 in AxSpA patients. These patients should be followed more carefully in the presence of COVID-19, regardless of reasons such as age, comorbidity, and extra-axial disease, and consideration of discontinuing sulfasalazine maybe even thought.

Microbiome in Immune-Mediated Uveitis

In the last decades, personalized medicine has been increasing its presence in different fields of medicine, including ophthalmology. A new factor that can help us direct medicine towards the challenge of personalized treatments is the microbiome. The gut microbiome plays an important role in controlling immune response, and dysbiosis has been associated with immune-mediated diseases such as non-infectious uveitis (NIU). In this review, we gather the published evidence, both in the pre-clinical and clinical studies, that support the possible role of intestinal dysbiosis in the pathogenesis of NIU, as well as the modulation of the gut microbiota as a new possible therapeutic target. We describe the different mechanisms that have been proposed to involve dysbiosis in the causality of NIU, as well as the potential pharmacological tools that could be used to modify the microbiome (dietary supplementation, antibiotics, fecal microbiota transplantation, immunomodulators, or biologic drugs) and, consequently, in the control of the NIU. Furthermore, there is increasing scientific evidence suggesting that the treatment with anti-TNF not only restores the composition of the gut microbiota but also that the study of the composition of the gut microbiome will help predict the response of each patient to anti-TNF treatment.

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.

Adalimumab and sulfasalazine in alleviating sacroiliac and aortic inflammation detected in PET/CT in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: PETSPA

Aim

Inflammatory signals in the sacroiliac (SI) joints and the aorta of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were graded by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging before and after treatment with sulfasalazine (SSZ) or adalimumab (ADA).

Methods

Patients with axSpA, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) ≥ 4, were recruited. Disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug‐naïve patients started SSZ for 12 weeks, whereas those with prestudy treatment with or contraindication to SSZ commenced ADA for 16 weeks. In addition, those patients in the SSZ group with insufficient response commenced ADA for 16 weeks. 18F‐fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT was performed after inclusion and after treatment with SSZ and ADA. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was assessed for the aorta and the SI joints, and maximal target‐to‐blood‐pool ratio (TBRmax) only for the aorta.

Results

Among five SSZ patients, mean ± SD BASDAI was 4.7 ± 1.6 before and 3.5 ± 1.4 after treatment (p = .101). In 13 ADA patients, the BASDAI decreased from 5.4 ± 1.6 to 2.8 ± 2.2 (p < .001). Among the SSZ patients, SUVmax in SI joints decreased from 2.35 ± 0.55 to 1.51 ± 0.22 (−35.8%, p = .029). Aortic TBRmax decreased from 1.59 ± 0.43 to 1.26 ± 0.26 (−33.2%, p = .087). In the ADA patients, SUVmax in the SI joints was 1.92 ± 0.65 before and 1.88 ± 0.54 after treatment (−1.8%, p = .808) and TBRmax in the aorta 1.50 ± 0.60 before and 1.40 ± 0.26 after treatment (−6.7%, p = .485).

Conclusions

Our small open‐label study showed that SSZ may reduce PET‐CT‐detectable inflammation in the SI joints, with a trend towards a reduction in the aorta.

The Italian Society for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis

Over the last few years, the landscape of treatments for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) has been rapidly evolving, urging international scientific societies to draft or update existing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the management of axial SpA. The Italian Society for Rheumatology (SIR) committed to provide revised and adapted evidence- and expert-based recommendations for the management of patients with axial SpA in Italy. A systematic approach to the adaptation of existing CPGs - the ADAPTE methodology - was adopted to obtain updated recommendations suitable for the Italian context. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline and Embase databases to find international CPGs and consensus statements with recommendations for the management of axial SpA published in the previous five years. A working group composed of rheumatologists with proven experience in the management of axial SpA and methodologists identified the key research questions which guided study selection and data extraction. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. The Italian recommendations were developed by endorsing or adapting and rewording some existing recommendations. The draft of the recommendations was sent to a multidisciplinary group of external reviewers for comment and rating. Six original CPGs were selected and used to create this SIR CPG, which includes a final set of 14 recommendations covering the management of patients with axial SpA across the following domains: assessment, pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment, and follow-up. The dissemination and implementation of these SIR recommendations are expected to support an evidencebased clinical approach to the management of patients with axial SpA in Italy.

Conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs therapy may not slow spinal radiographic progression in ankylosing spondylitis: results from an 18-year longitudinal dataset

Objectives:

The clinical benefit of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) for treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is generally limited to improvements in peripheral arthritis. However, cDMARDs could be conditionally considered as alternatives to established drugs for improving axial manifestations in exceptional circumstances. However, there are few studies of the impact of cDMARDs on radiographic progression outcomes. Therefore, we investigated the effectiveness of cDMARDs on radiographic progression in AS.

Methods:

Among 1280 AS patients at a single hospital from 2000 to 2018, 301 who had been treated with sulfasalazine (SSZ) or methotrexate (MTX) were enrolled. For each patient, the entire follow-up period was split into 1-year intervals. Each interval was classified as either an “on-cDMARD” interval, which was a period of treatment with SSZ alone, MTX alone, or a combination of SSZ and MTX, or an “off-cDMARD” interval, which was a period without cDMARD treatment. Radiographic progression was scored using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS). The relationship between cDMARD use and radiographic progression within the intervals, defined as the rate of mSASSS progression, was investigated using linear models with adjustment for potential confounding covariates and for clustering among observations from the same patient.

Results:

The 732 on-cDMARD intervals and 1027 off-cDMARD intervals were obtained from enrolled patients. In multivariable regression analysis, there was no significant association between cDMARDs and the rate of mSASSS progression (β = −0.081, p = 0.418). The mean adjusted mSASSS change per year was 0.610 from on-cDMARD intervals and 0.691 from off-cDMARD intervals.

Conclusion:

Treatment with cDMARDs may not reduce radiographic progression in AS patients.

Combination of methotrexate and sulfasalazine is an efficacious option for axial spondyloarthritis in a resource-limited, real-world clinical setting: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of response to combination conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) therapy with methotrexate (MTX) and sulfasalazine (SSZ) in active axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients without peripheral arthritis (group 1) as compared to active axSpA with peripheral arthritis (group 2), who are economically constrained for biologicals.

METHODS

A prospective, observational, single-centre, cohort study on 150 consecutive active axSpA patients who were already initiated on the above mentioned combination csDMARD therapy and satisfying the other pre-defined eligibility criteria, was conducted between July 2016 and July 2017 using ASAS20 response as primary outcome measure at 3 and 6 months post treatment.

RESULTS

ASAS20 response at 3 months was achieved in 31/58 (53.4%) and in 24/36 (66.6%) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.2); at 6 months, these figures were 45/76 (59.2%) and 28/44 (63.6%), respectively (p = 0.6). Similarly, there was significant reduction in mean ASAS NSAID index from 29.6 to 14 over 6 months from baseline (p = 0.001), and it was similar in both groups. Using BASDAI ≥ 4 to define active disease, a 34% reduction in requirement of biologicals was also observed.

CONCLUSION

In resource-limited population, treatment with combination of methotrexate and sulphasalazine over a period of 6 months is equally efficacious in patients with active axSpA with and without peripheral arthritis, as evidenced by improved ASAS20 response rates, reduction in NSAID use and fewer patients switching to biologicals. Key Points • Combination of MTX+SSZ was efficacious and safe in active axSpA patients who had economic hardships to use biologicals. • This benefit in axSpA patients was similar between those without any peripheral arthritis and those with. • MTX+SSZ combination therapy also demonstrated NSAID sparing action. • Combination of MTX and SSZ prevented escalation to biological therapy as per a BASDAI score driven policy.

The Brazilian Society of Rheumatology guidelines for axial spondyloarthritis - 2019

Spondyloarthritis is a group of chronic inflammatory systemic diseases characterized by axial and/or peripheral joints inflammation, as well as extra-articular manifestations. The classification axial spondyloarthritis is adopted when the spine and/or the sacroiliac joints are predominantly involved. This version of recommendations replaces the previous guidelines published in May 2013.A systematic literature review was performed, and two hundred thirty-seven studies were selected and used to formulate 29 recommendations answering 15 clinical questions, which were divided into four sections: diagnosis, non-pharmacological therapy, conventional drug therapy and biological therapy. For each recommendation the level of evidence supporting (highest available), the strength grade according to Oxford, and the degree of expert agreement (inter-rater reliability) is informed.These guidelines bring evidence-based information on clinical management of axial SpA patients, including, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis.

Taiwan Rheumatology Association consensus recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis

Aim

To establish guidelines for the clinical management of axial spondyloarthritis that take into account local issues and clinical practice concerns for Taiwan.

Method

Overarching principles and recommendations were established by consensus among a panel of rheumatology and rehabilitation experts, based on analysis of the most up‐to‐date clinical evidence and the clinical experience of panelists. All Overarching Principles and Recommendations were graded according to the standards developed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, and further evaluated and modified using the Delphi method.

Results

The guidelines specifically address issues such as local medical considerations, National Health Insurance reimbursement, and management of extra‐articular manifestations.

Conclusion

It is hoped that this will help to optimize clinical management outcomes for axial spondyloarthritis in Taiwan.

2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis

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.

2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis

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.

Fecal transplants in spondyloarthritis and uveitis: ready for a clinical trial?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The intestinal microbiome is thought to play a role in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). There are many shared clinical manifestations between IBD and spondyloarthritis (SpA), of which the most common are peripheral arthritis and uveitis. Clinical overlap along with similar genetics between these diseases suggests a possible shared pathogenetic mechanism, which might center on the intestinal microbiota. In this review, we discuss the available evidence that SpA is a microbiome-driven disease and indicate how SpA-associated uveitis could be tied to gut dysbiosis. We conclude by discussing different treatment paradigms targeting the intestinal microbiome for SpA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies support the growing evidence of the intestinal microbiome as a crucial player in SpA disease pathogenesis. There is emerging evidence that the gut microbiome may play a causative role in uveitis.

SUMMARY

The field is beginning to discover a new level of understanding how the intestinal microbiome is involved in SpA. Treatment methods to alter intestinal microbiota to treat SpA-related diseases are still in its infancy.

Rheumatology science and practice in India

The practice of rheumatology in a country like India presents its own unique challenges, including the need to manage patients in a cost-constrained setting, where the lack of uniform government funding for healthcare merits the need to optimize the use of cheaper medicines, as well as devise innovative strategies to minimize the use of costlier drugs such as biologic disease-modifying agents. Use of immunosuppressive agents is also associated with increased risks of infectious complications, such as the reactivation of tuberculosis. In this narrative review, we provide a flavor of such challenges unique to Rheumatology practice in India, and review the published literature on the management of common rheumatic diseases from India. In addition, we critically review existing guidelines for the management of rheumatic diseases from this part of the world. We also discuss infectious etiologies of rheumatic complaints, such as leprosy, tuberculosis, and Chikungunya arthritis, which are often encountered here, and pose a diagnostic as well as therapeutic challenge for clinicians. There remains a need to identify and test more cost-effective strategies for Indian patients with rheumatic diseases, as well as the requirement for more government participation to enhance scant facilities for the treatment of such diseases as well as foster the development of healthcare services such as specialist nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists to enable better management of these conditions.

Analysis of relapse rates and risk factors of tapering or stopping pharmacologic therapies in axial spondyloarthritis patients with sustained remission

The objectives of this study are to evaluate whether tapering or stopping strategies of pharmacologic therapies are efficacious for maintaining remission in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSPA) and to analyze the risk factors of disease relapse. Patients diagnosed as axSPA with ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score based on C reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP) ≤2.0 for at least 3 months were randomized into three groups: continuing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (group 1), tapering NSAIDs and DMARDs by 50% (group 2), or discontinuing NSAIDs and DMARDs (group3) after 6 months of tapering. The primary endpoint of observation was disease relapse or sustained remission till 12 months. One hundred and eight patients were analyzed in this study. All patients fulfilled ASDAS remission criteria at baseline. Other than NSAIDs therapy, 63.0% of the patients received sulfasalazine, 33.3% biological DMARDs, and 19.4% other DMARDs. Overall, 87 patients (80.6%) remained in remission for 12 months, whereas 21 patients (19.4%) relapsed at the end of the study. There were significant differences of relapse rates among three different study groups (group 1, 5.4%; group 2, 13.2%; group 3, 42.7%; p<0.001), while no significant difference was found between group 1 and group 2 (p=0.430). Multivariate logistic regression identified high ASDAS-CRP at baseline (p=0.001) and drug discontinuation (p<0.001) as predictors for relapse. This randomized controlled study demonstrated that tapering NSAIDs and DMARDs by 50% in patients with axSPA in sustained remission is a feasible treatment strategy. Besides, disease relapse may be related with ASDAS-CRP before treatment tapering.