The ASAS-OMERACT core domain set for axial spondyloarthritis.

BACKGROUND: The current core outcome set for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) has had only minor adaptations since its development 20 years ago. Considering the significant advances in this field during the preceding decades, an update of this core set is necessary. OBJECTIVE: To update the ASAS-OMERACT core outcome set for AS into the ASAS-OMERACT core outcome set for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Following OMERACT and COMET guidelines, an international working group representing key stakeholders (patients, rheumatologists, health professionals, pharmaceutical industry and drug regulatory agency representatives) defined the core domain set for axSpA. The development process consisted of: i) Identifying candidate domains using a systematic literature review and qualitative studies; ii) Selection of the most relevant domains for different stakeholders through a 3-round Delphi survey involving axSpA patients and axSpA experts; iii) Consensus and voting by ASAS; iv) Endorsement by OMERACT. Two scenarios are considered based on the type of therapy investigated in the trial: symptom modifying therapies and disease modifying therapies. RESULTS: The updated core outcome set for axSpA includes 7 mandatory domains for all trials (disease activity, pain, morning stiffness, fatigue, physical function, overall functioning and health, and adverse events including death). There are 3 additional domains (extra-musculoskeletal manifestations, peripheral manifestations and structural damage) that are mandatory for disease modifying therapies and important but optional for symptom modifying therapies. Finally, 3 other domains (spinal mobility, sleep, and work and employment) are defined as important but optional domains for all trials. CONCLUSION: The ASAS-OMERACT core domain set for AS has been updated into the ASAS-OMERACT core domain set for axSpA. The next step is the selection of instruments for each domain.

Propensity score matching/reweighting analysis comparing intravenous golimumab to infliximab for ankylosing spondylitis using data from the GO-ALIVE and ASSERT trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of intravenous golimumab (GOL IV) and infliximab (IFX) for active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: Propensity score (PS) methods were used to compare the efficacy of GOL IV 2 mg/kg and IFX 5 mg/kg using individual patient data (IPD) from the active arms of the phase 3 GO-ALIVE and ASSERT studies. Outcomes included the proportion of patients with a ≥ 20% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Criteria (ASAS20), change from baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) score, and change from baseline in C-reactive protein (CRP) levels from weeks 4-52. RESULTS: Before matching, 105 patients were treated with GOL IV and 201 patients were treated with IFX. After matching on all covariates, 118 patients were included in the ASAS20 analysis, 96 in the BASFI analysis, and 160 in the CRP analysis. After matching, GOL IV showed significantly greater improvement in ASAS20 response than IFX for weeks 28-44 (e.g., OR = 9.05 [95% CI 1.62-50.4] at week 44) and was comparable in change from baseline in BASFI scores and CRP levels to IFX at all time points. Results were robust for inclusion of different sets of covariates in scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first analysis of its kind to leverage clinical trial data to compare two biologics using PS methods in the treatment of active AS. Overall, GOL IV was associated with greater improvement in ASAS20 response than IFX in patients with AS at 28, 36, and 44 weeks of follow-up. Key Points • Although intravenous golimumab (GOL IV) and infliximab (IFX) are the only two IV-based tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors with demonstrated phase 3 clinical efficacy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), no study has evaluated their comparative efficacy in a head-to-head trial. • Propensity score matching was used to derive indirect treatment comparisons of GOL IV and IFX for ≥ 20% in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Criteria (ASAS20), change in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), and change in C-reactive protein (CRP) using individual patient data from the GO-ALIVE and ASSERT phase 3 trials. • Propensity score matched indirect comparisons showed improved relative efficacy of GOL IV compared to IFX; after matching for up to 16 baseline covariates, GOL IV was associated with significantly greater odds of ASAS20 response at weeks 28, 36, and 44 than IFX as well as equivalent changes from baseline in BASFI and CRP. • This novel application of propensity score matching using data from phase 3 trials, the first analysis of its kind in AS, allowed adjustment for important imbalances in prognostic factors between trials to generate estimates of comparative efficacy between GOL IV and IFX in the absence of a head-to-head trial between these treatments.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of current and investigational treatments for active ankylosing spondylitis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of current and investigational biologic and oral small molecule (OSM) treatments for active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify all phase 2/3 randomized trials of interest in patients with AS. Outcomes assessed were ≥ 20% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Criteria (ASAS20) and change from baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) and C-reactive protein (CRP) at weeks 12-16. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted for outcomes using a random effects model. Baseline-risk adjustment was also conducted to account for differences in placebo response across studies. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve (SUCRA) values are reported, reflecting the relative probability that intervention was the best of all interventions. RESULTS: The investigational agent tofacitinib 5 mg was the top-ranked treatment (SUCRA, 93%) for ASAS20 response, followed by intravenous (IV) golimumab 2 mg/kg (90%). Golimumab IV 2 mg/kg and infliximab 5 mg/kg were the top two ranked treatments for change from baseline in BASFI (golimumab IV, 81%; infliximab, 80%) and change from baseline in CRP (infliximab, 90%; golimumab IV, 82%). CONCLUSIONS: Two approved therapies (golimumab IV, infliximab) and one investigational product ranked highest for efficacy in AS. Key Points • Although golimumab IV, infliximab, and tofacitinib ranked highest for efficacy in AS, differences in efficacy between approved and investigational therapies were not statistically significant.

American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network 2015: recommendations for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis

OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: A core group led the development of the recommendations, starting with the treatment questions. A literature review group conducted systematic literature reviews of studies that addressed 57 specific treatment questions, based on searches conducted in OVID Medline (1946-2014), PubMed (1966-2014), and the Cochrane Library. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. A separate voting group reviewed the evidence and voted on recommendations for each question using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: In patients with active AS, the strong recommendations included use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) when activity persists despite NSAID treatment, not to use systemic glucocorticoids, use of physical therapy, and use of hip arthroplasty for patients with advanced hip arthritis. Among the conditional recommendations was that no particular TNFi was preferred except in patients with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease or recurrent iritis, in whom TNFi monoclonal antibodies should be used. In patients with active nonradiographic axial SpA despite treatment with NSAIDs, we conditionally recommend treatment with TNFi. Other recommendations for patients with nonradiographic axial SpA were based on indirect evidence and were the same as for patients with AS. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide guidance for the management of common clinical questions in AS and nonradiographic axial SpA. Additional research on optimal medication management over time, disease monitoring, and preventive care is needed to help establish best practices in these areas.(AU)

Clinical, radiographic and functional differences between juvenile-onset and adult-onset ankylosing spondylitis: results from the PSOAS cohort.

AIMS: Previous data suggests that patients with juvenile-onset ankylosing spondylitis (JoAS) have more severe disease and worse functional outcomes than adult-onset AS (AoAS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical, functional and radiographic differences between patients with JoAS and AoAS in a large cohort of patients with long-standing disease. METHODS: A total of 402 subjects who met the Modified New York Criteria for definitive AS and had had disease >or=20 years were enrolled in a multi-centre cross-sectional study (Prospective Study of Outcomes in Ankylosing Spondylitis; PSOAS). JoAS was defined as initial symptoms