The presence of Waddell signs depends on age and gender, not diagnosis.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine if positive Waddell signs were related to patients' demographics or to perception of their quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study included 479 adult patients with back pain from a university spine centre. Each completed SF-12 and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaires and underwent standard spinal examinations to elicit Waddell signs. The relationship between Waddell signs and age, gender, ODI, Mental Component Score (MCS), and Physical Component Score (PCS) scores was determined. RESULTS: Of the 479 patients, 128 (27%) had at least one positive Waddell sign. There were significantly more women with two or more Waddell signs than men. The proportion of patients with at least one positive Waddell sign increased with age until 55 years, and then declined rapidly; none had a positive sign over the age of 75 years. Functional outcome scores were significantly worse in those with a single Waddell sign (p < 0.01). With one or more Waddell signs, patients' PCS and ODI scores indicated a perception of severe disability; with three or more Waddell signs, patients' MCS scores indicated severe disability. With five Waddell signs, ODI scores indicated that patients perceived themselves as crippled. CONCLUSION: Positive Waddell signs, a potential indicator of central sensitization, indicated a likelihood of having functional limitations and an impaired quality of life, particularly in young women. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:219-25.

Lumbar magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with and without Waddell Signs.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Waddell Signs (WS), introduced as a method to establish patients with substantial psychosocial components to their low back pain, carry a negative association despite no literature evaluating whether physical disease is associated with them. PURPOSE: To compare lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings between the patients with and without WS. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study based on prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Thirty patients aged 35 to 55 years with an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score >50 randomly selected such that there was an even distribution of patients based on the number of WS. OUTCOME MEASURES: ODI and Short Form-12 scores, number of WS, presence and severity of spinal pathology. METHODS: MRIs were reviewed by three spine specialists blinded to clinical exam findings, number of WS, and patient identity. Type and severity of pathology and presence of surgical and non-surgical lesions were assessed, and findings were rank ordered based on the overall impression of the pathology. There was no external funding or potential conflicts of interest for this study. RESULTS: There were significantly more individual pathologic findings in patients without WS (p=.02). However, there was no difference in the severity of pathology based on WS (p=.46). Furthermore, the rank ordering based on overall impression of severity showed no difference between the patients with and without WS (p=.20). Although 100% of the patients without WS showed pathologic findings on MRI, 70% of WS patients also had significant pathology on MRI. The prevalence of spondylolisthesis, stenosis, and disc herniation was similar (p=.41, p=.22, and p=.43, respectively). The prevalence and mean number of lesion amenable to surgery did not differ based on presence of WS (p=.21 and p=.18, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with WS present a difficult diagnostic challenge for the physician as their organic symptoms are often coexistent with emotional fear avoidance behavior. Although there is more overall pathology in patients without WS, a significant number of these patients appear to have comparable spinal pathology with equivalent severity, which may be contributing to patients' symptoms and disability. Presence of these non-organic symptoms often makes us doubt these patients. However, as part of effective treatment, physicians should better understand both the physical and psychological components of patient disability.

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)