Clinical and structural damage outcomes in axial spondyloarthritis patients receiving NSAIDs or advanced therapies: a description of a real-life cohort.

Introduction: This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics, disease activity, and structural damage in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who receive chronic treatment with nonsteroideal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or advanced therapies in a clinical setting. Methods: Cross-sectional study on axSpA patients consecutively recruited from the outpatient clinic of a tertiary hospital. We collected data on clinical and demographic characteristics, as well as treatment patterns involving NSAIDs and advanced therapies. Structural damage was assessed using mSASSS. Results: Overall, data from 193 axSpA patients (83% ankylosing spondylitis) were gathered, with a mean disease duration of 21.4 years. Of these, 85 patients (44%) were exclusively taking NSAIDs, while 108 (56%) were receiving advanced therapies, with TNF inhibitors being the predominant choice (93 out of 108, 86.1%). Among patients using NSAIDs, 64.7% followed an on-demand dosing regimen, while only 17.6% used full doses. Disease activity was low, with a mean BASDAI of 3.1 and a mean ASDAS-CRP of 1.8. In comparison to patients under chronic NSAID treatment, those taking advanced therapies were primarily male (69.4% versus 51.8%, p = 0.025) and significantly younger (mean age of 49 versus 53.9 years, p = 0.033). Additionally, patients on advanced therapies exhibited lower ASDAS-CRP (p = 0.046), although CRP serum levels and BASDAI scores did not differ between the two groups. In the multivariable analysis, therapy (NSAID versus biological treatment) was not independently associated with ASDAS-CRP, BASDAI or mSASSS. Conclusion: This cross-sectional analysis of a real-world cohort of axSpA patients shows positive clinical and radiological outcomes for both NSAIDs and advanced therapies.

Validación del ClinESSDAI para Argentina / Validation of ClinESSDAI for Argentina

Introducción: recientemente, en Europa y en idioma inglés, se ha desarrollado el Clinical EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ClinESSDAI) para evaluar la actividad en pacientes con síndrome de Sjögren primario (SSp). Objetivos: validar el ClinESSDAI en pacientes con SSp en Argentina. Materiales y métodos: estudio de corte transversal. Se utilizó la versión en castellano del EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) validada en Argentina. Para evaluar la validez del constructo, se usó la escala visual análoga (EVA) desarrollada por un reumatólogo experto por dominio del ClinESSDAI y de la EVA global para el puntaje total del ClinESSDAI, mientras que otro profesional en la materia realizó el ESSDAI y ClinESSDAI. Para analizar la reproducibilidad, se estudió a un subgrupo de pacientes, sin mediar cambios en el tratamiento ni en la condición clínica, 10 días después de la evaluación basal. Todos los médicos examinaron a los pacientes desconociendo la evaluación de los demás colegas. Resultados: se incluyeron 47 pacientes con SSp. La correlación entre la EVA global y el ClinESSDAI fue muy buena (Rho 0,7), así como la correlación de la EVA y el ClinESSDAI de cada dominio. El coeficiente de correlación intraclase (CCI) entre el ESSDAI y el ClinESSDAI fue de 0,98. La reproducibilidad fue de 0,93. Conclusiones: el ClinESSDAI es una herramienta válida y reproducible en nuestra población, equiparable al ESSDAI.

Introduction: the Clinical EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ClinESSDAI) has recently been developed in Europe and in the English language to evaluate activity in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS). Objectives: validate the ClinESSDAI in patients pSS in Argentina. Materials and methods: a cross-sectional study. The Spanish version of the ESSDAI, validated in Argentina, was used. To evaluate construct validity, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used, performed by an expert rheumatologist per ClinESSDAI domain, and the global VAS was used for the total score of the ClinESSDAI, while another professional performed the ESSDAI and ClinESSDAI. To evaluate reproducibility, a subgroup of patients was evaluated without changes in treatment or clinical condition 10 days after the baseline evaluation. All physicians were blind to each other's evaluation. Results: 47 patients with pSS were included. The correlation between global VAS and ClinESSDAI was very good (Rho 0.7), as well as the correlation of the VAS and ClinESSDAI of each domain. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between ESSDAI and ClinESSDAI was 0.98. The reproducibility was 0.93. Conclusions: the ClinESSDAI is a valid and reproducible tool in our population, comparable to the ESSDAI.