Should over-treatment of axial spondyloarthritis with biologics remain a concern after the issue of the new ASAS criteria? Data from REGISPONSERBIO (Spanish Register of Biological Therapy in Spondyloarthritides).

OBJECTIVES: To study whether disease status at treatment initiation has changed after the issue of the ASAS classification criteria. METHODS: REGISPONSERBIO registers patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) on biological treatment since 2013. It includes patients starting biological treatment (incident) or already on biological therapies (prevalent). Patients in both groups were compared in terms of: age at disease onset and at treatment start, disease duration, gender, HLA-B27, body mass index (BMI), BASDAI, BASFI, C-reactive protein, ESR, metrological data, ASQoL, WAPAI, extra-articular manifestations, comorbidities, radiological study, type of biological treatment and concomitant treatments. RESULTS: 256 patients were included, of whom 174 (65%) were already on biologic therapy. Compared to incident patients, prevalent patients started treatment with longer disease duration (15 vs. 8.6 years; p<0.001), a higher proportion of them were men (83% vs. 67%; p=0.01), a smaller proportion of them showed non-radiographic axial spondylarthritis (nr-axSpA)(17% vs. 32%; p<0.01), and a higher proportion had HLAB27 (85% vs. 73%; p=0.02). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of disease activity, degree of disability, quality of life, or prevalence of extra-articular manifestations. CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest that, after the issue of the new classification criteria for SpA, biological therapy is being administered earlier than previously in SpA patients and in a higher proportion of patients with nr-axSpA. However, this change in prescribing profile, apparently, has not caused an over-treatment, as patients do not seem to have a lower disease burden than prior to the issue of the criteria.

Etoricoxib in ankylosing spondylitis: is there a role for active patients refractory to traditional NSAIDs?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of etoricoxib in patients with axial ankylosing spondyloarthritis (AS) refractory to traditional NSAIDs. METHODS: This was an open label, multicentric, randomised, prospective (4 weeks with and open extension to 6 months), non-controlled study. Consecutive patients with axial AS refractory to traditional NSAID eligible for anti-TNF-α therapy were selected. The primary outcomes were the rate of patients with good clinical response (not eligible for anti-TNF-α therapy after etoricoxib) and the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria for biologic therapies (ASASBIO) response at 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes included: ASAS20 and 40 responses, ASDAS-CRP response, BASDAI, BASFI, back and night back pain, global patient and physician assessment of the disease, and biologic parameters like C-reactive protein (CRP) at 2, 4 weeks and 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 57 axial AS patients were recruited, 46 men, with mean age of 43 years. After 4 weeks of treatment, 26 patients (46%) achieved a good clinical response and 11 (20%) an ASASBIO response. These results at 24 weeks were 19 (33%) and 13 (23%) respectively. All individual clinical variables improved significantly after 4 weeks of treatment. CRP serum levels decreased after 4 weeks but reached no statistical significance, although 30% of patients showed a normalisation of CRP. CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib provided a clear clinical improvement in around a third of patients with axial AS refractory to traditional NSAIDs. Special care should be required when deciding to start anti-TNF-α therapy; it seems reasonable to keep in mind these results of etoricoxib treatment.

Standards of care for patients with spondyloarthritis.

To define and give priory to standards of care in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). A systematic literature review on SpA standards of care and a specific search in relevant and related sources was performed. An expert panel was established who developed the standards of care and graded their priority (high, mild, low, or no priority) following qualitative methodology and Delphi process. An electronic survey was sent to a representative sample of 167 rheumatologists all around the country, who also gave priority to the standards of care (same scale). A descriptive analysis is presented. The systematic literature review retrieved no article specifically related to SpA patients. A total of 38 standards of care were obtained-12 related to structure, 20 to process, and 6 to result. Access to care, treatment, and safety standards of care were given a high priority by most of rheumatologists. Standards not directly connected to daily practice were not given such priority, as standards which included a time framework. The standards generated for the performance evaluation (including patient and professionals satisfaction) were not considered especially important in general. This set of standards of care should help improve the quality of care in SpA patients.

Scoring with the Berlin MRI method for assessment of spinal inflammatory activity in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a calibration exercise among rheumatologists.

OBJECTIVES: To test the reliability of the Berlin MRI scoring method and the effect of a calibration exercise on the score's reliability among untrained readers in MRI examinations of patients with established ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: Eleven rheumatologists read blinded images of 20 AS patients before and after a two-day workshop on the Berlin MRI scoring method. Reliability (intra- and inter-reader) and concordance with the expert (all measured by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)) were compared before and after 2 weeks of the training. Feasibility in terms of time and difficulty was also measured. RESULTS: The mean Berlin score increased from (mean ± standard deviation) 5.04 ± 6.41 before to 6.40±7.08 after the calibration exercise (p<0.01). Inter-reader ICC decreased from 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75-0.93) to 0.78 (95% CI: 0.66-0.90), and intra-reader ICC from 0.89 (95% CI: 0.84-0.94) to 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92). Agreement with an experienced reader improved after the calibration exercise, with ICC = 0.59 (95% CI 0.45-0.76) before vs. ICC = 0.65 (95% CI 0.50-0.80) after training. CONCLUSIONS: The Berlin method is a reliable scoring method for assessment of spinal inflammatory activity by using MRI in patients with AS, even in the hands of inexperienced readers. A calibration exercise can improve feasibility and sensitivity of the scoring method.

Consenso SER sobre la gestión de riesgo del tratamiento con terapias biológicas en pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas / Consensus statement of the spanish society of rheumatology on risk management of biologic therapy in rheumatic patients

Objetivo: Dado el creciente uso de las terapias biológicas en distintas enfermedades reumatológicas, y la importancia de la gestión de riesgo de las mismas, desde la Sociedad Española de Reumatología (SER) se ha impulsado el desarrollo de recomendaciones basadas en la mejor evidencia posible. Estas deben de servir de referencia para reumatólogos e implicados en el tratamiento de pacientes en tratamiento o en los que se quiere indicar la terapia biológica independientemente de su enfermedad de base. Métodos: Las recomendaciones se emitieron siguiendo la metodología de grupos nominales. El nivel de evidencia y el grado de recomendación se clasificaron según el modelo del Center for Evidence Based Medicine de Oxford y el grado de acuerdo se extrajo por técnica Delphi. Se utilizó toda la información de consensos y guías de práctica clínica previas. Resultados: Se realizan recomendaciones sobre la gestión del riesgo del uso de las terapias biológicas en pacientes con enfermedades reumática. Incluyen la gestión del riesgo de la indicación, gestión del riesgo antes de iniciar el tratamiento, gestión del riesgo durante el seguimiento, actitud ante acontecimientos adversos, y actitud en situaciones especiales. Conclusiones: Se presentan las recomendaciones SER sobre la gestión del riesgo del tratamiento con terapias biológicas (AU)

Objective: Due to the increasing use of biologic therapy in rheumatic diseases and the importance of its risk management, the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER) has promoted the development of recommendations based on the best evidence available. These recommendations should be a reference to rheumatologists and those involved in the treatment of patients who are using, or about to use biologic therapy irrespectively of the rheumatic disease. Methods: Recommendations were developed following a nominal group methodology and based on systematic reviews. The level of evidence and degree of recommendation were classified according to the model proposed by the Center for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford. The level of agreement was established through a Delphi technique. Evidence from previous consensus and clinical guidelines was used. Results: We have produced recommendations on risk management of biologic therapy in rheumatic patients. These recommendations include indication risk management, risk management before the use of biologic therapy, risk management during follow-up, attitude to adverse events, and attitude to special situations. Conclusions: We present the SER recommendations related to biologic therapy risk management (AU)

[Consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on risk management of biologic therapy in rheumatic patients]. / Consenso SER sobre la gestión de riesgo del tratamiento con terapias biológicas en pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas.

OBJECTIVE: Due to the increasing use of biologic therapy in rheumatic diseases and the importance of its risk management, the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER) has promoted the development of recommendations based on the best evidence available. These recommendations should be a reference to rheumatologists and those involved in the treatment of patients who are using, or about to use biologic therapy irrespectively of the rheumatic disease. METHODS: Recommendations were developed following a nominal group methodology and based on systematic reviews. The level of evidence and degree of recommendation were classified according to the model proposed by the Center for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford. The level of agreement was established through a Delphi technique. Evidence from previous consensus and clinical guidelines was used. RESULTS: We have produced recommendations on risk management of biologic therapy in rheumatic patients. These recommendations include indication risk management, risk management before the use of biologic therapy, risk management during follow-up, attitude to adverse events, and attitude to special situations. CONCLUSIONS: We present the SER recommendations related to biologic therapy risk management.

Diagnostic evaluation and classification criteria in Sjögren's Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective is to carry out a clinical study of the performance of the preliminary European classification criteria for Sjögren Syndrome and that of the criteria proposed by the American European Consensus Group. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients who had undergone a biopsy of the salivary gland on suspicion that they were suffering from Sjögren Syndrome were studied by two independent rheumatologists. Two pathologists independently revised the biopsies without knowing the diagnosis. With all of this information, the clinicians established, or did not establish, a diagnosis of primary Sjögren Syndrome or secondary Sjögren Syndrome. Finally, it was analysed whether or not the patients met the American European Consensus Group classification criteria and the preliminary European criteria for primary Sjögren Syndrome and secondary Sjögren Syndrome, and their sensitivity and specificity with respect to the clinical diagnosis were determined. RESULTS: Clinicians estimated that 35 cases (39.8%) had primary Sjögren Syndrome (kappa 0.718) and 17 cases (19.3%) had secondary Sjögren Syndrome (kappa 0.761). The specificity and sensitivity of American European Consensus Group criteria, with regard to the clinical diagnosis, for primary Sjögren Syndrome were 97.2% and 48.6%, respectively. For secondary Sjögren Syndrome, the specificity was 97.2% and the sensitivity 64.7%. The preliminary European criteria for primary Sjögren Syndrome demonstrated a lesser specificity (75%), but a higher sensitivity (65.7%). In secondary Sjögren Syndrome the specificity reached 97.2% with sensitivity at 70.6%. CONCLUSIONS: These results underline the difficulty in applying the Sjögren Syndrome classification criteria from the American European Consensus Group and the preliminary European criteria, in the diagnosis of individual patients.