Determinants of health-related quality of life and global functioning and health in axSpA, pSpA, and PsA: results from the ASAS-PerSpA study.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to identify determinants of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and global functioning and health (GH) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), peripheral spondyloarthritis (pSpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: ASAS-perSpA study data were analyzed. Models for the three patient groups were performed separately to explore factors associated with HRQoL and GH, assessed by EQ-5D and ASAS-HI, respectively. RESULTS: The analyses included 4185 patients: 2719 with axSpA, 433 with pSpA, and 1033 with PsA.In axSpA, disease activity (DA) (ß=-0.061), physical function (ß=-0.041), female sex (ß=-0.019), and fibromyalgia (ß=-0.068) were associated with worse HRQoL; age (ß = 0.001) and university education (ß = 0.014) with better HRQoL. In pSpA, DA (ß=-0.04) and physical function (ß=-0.054) were associated with worse HRQoL. In PsA, DA (ß=-0.045), physical function (ß=-0.053), axial disease (ß=-0.041), and female sex (ß=-0.028) were associated with worse HRQoL.In axSpA, DA (ß = 0.889), physical function (ß = 0.887), peripheral disease (ß = 0.564), female sex (ß = 0.812) and fibromyalgia (ß = 1.639) were associated with worse GH; age (ß=-0.013) and university education (ß=-0.274) with better GH. In pSpA, physical function (ß = 1.142), and female sex (ß = 1.060) were associated with worse GH; university education (ß=-0.611) with better GH. In PsA, DA (ß = 0.703), physical function (ß = 1.025), axial involvement (ß = 0.659), female sex (ß = 0.924), and fibromyalgia (ß = 1.387) were associated with worse GH; age (ß=-0.024) and university education (ß=-0.856) with better GH. CONCLUSIONS: DA and physical function are major HRQoL and GH determinants across spondyloarthritis types, and clinical characteristics and sociodemographic factors play an important role, highlighting the importance of a holistic approach for individual patients.

Is a combined programme of manual therapy and exercise more effective than usual care in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain? A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a combined intervention of manual therapy and exercise (MET) versus usual care (UC), on disability, pain intensity and global perceived recovery, in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (CNP). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient care units. SUBJECTS: Sixty-four non-specific CNP patients were randomly allocated to MET (n = 32) or UC (n = 32) groups. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the MET group received 12 sessions of mobilization and exercise, whereas the UC group received 15 sessions of usual care in physiotherapy. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was disability (Neck Disability Index). The secondary outcomes were pain intensity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale) and global perceived recovery (Patient Global Impression Change). Patients were assessed at baseline, three weeks, six weeks (end of treatment) and at a three-month follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty-eight participants completed the study. No significant between-group difference was observed on disability and pain intensity at baseline. A significant between-group difference was observed on disability at three-week, six-week and three-month follow-up (median (P25-P75): 6 (3.25-9.81) vs. 15.5 (11.28-20.75); P < 0.001), favouring the MET group. Regarding pain intensity, a significant between-group difference was observed at six-week and three-month follow-up (median (P25-P75): 2 (1-2.51) vs. 5 (3.33-6); P < 0.001), with superiority of effect in MET group. Concerning the global perceived recovery, a significant between-group difference was observed only at the three-month follow-up (P = 0.001), favouring the MET group. CONCLUSION: This study's findings suggest that a combination of manual therapy and exercise is more effective than usual care on disability, pain intensity and global perceived recovery.

Portuguese recommendations for the use of biological therapies in patients with axial spondyloarthritis - 2016 update.

OBJECTIVE: To update the recommendations for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with biological therapies, endorsed by the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology. METHODS: These treatment recommendations were formulated by Portuguese rheumatologists based on literature evidence and consensus opinion. At a national meeting, the 7 recommendations included in this document were discussed and updated. A draft of the full text of the recommendations was then circulated and suggestions were incorporated. A final version was again circulated before publication and the level of agreement among Portuguese Rheumatologists was anonymously assessed using an online survey. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved regarding the initiation, assessment of response and switching of biological therapies in patients with axSpA. In total, seven recommendations were produced. The first recommendation is a general statement indicating that biological therapy is not a first-line drug treatment option and should only be used after conventional treatment has failed. The second recommendation is also a general statement about the broad concept of axSpA adopted by these recommendations that includes both non-radiographic and radiographic axSpA. Recommendations 3 to 7 deal with the definition of active disease (including the recommended threshold of 2.1 for the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS] or the threshold of 4 [0-10 scale] for the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI]), conventional treatment failure (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs being the first-line drug treatment), assessment of response to treatment (based on an ASDAS improvement  of at least 1.1 units or a BASDAI improvement of at least 2 units [0-10 scale] or at least 50%), and strategy in the presence of an inadequate response (where switching is recommended) or in the presence of long-term remission (where a process of biological therapy optimization can be considered, either a gradual increase in the interval between doses or a decrease of each dose of the biological therapy). CONCLUSION: These recommendations may be used for guidance in deciding which patients with axSpA should be treated with biological therapies. They cover a rapidly evolving area of therapeutic intervention. As more evidence becomes available and more biological therapies are licensed, these recommendations will have to be updated.