MRI lesions of the spine in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: an update of lesion definitions and validation by the ASAS MRI working group

OBJECTIVES: Spinal MRI is used to visualise lesions associated with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). The ASAS MRI working group (WG) updated and validated the definitions for inflammatory and structural spinal lesions in the context of axSpA. METHODS: After review of the existing literature on all possible types of spinal MRI pathologies in axSpA, the group (12 rheumatologists and two radiologists) consented on the required revisions of lesion definitions compared with the existing nomenclature of 2012. In a second step, using 62 MRI scans from the ASAS classification cohort, the proposed definitions were validated in a multireader campaign by global (absent/present) and detailed (inflammation and structural) lesion assessment at the vertebral corner (VC), vertebral endplate, facet joints, transverse processes, lateral and posterior elements. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for analysis. RESULTS: Revisions were made for both inflammatory (bone marrow oedema, BMO) and structural (fat, erosion, bone spur and ankylosis) lesions, including localisation (central vs lateral), extension (VC vs vertebral endplate) and extent (minimum number of slices needed), while new definitions were suggested for the type of lesion based on lesion maturity (VC monomorphic vs dimorphic). The most reliably assessed lesions were VC fat lesion and VC monomorphic BMO (ICC (mean of all 36 reader pairs/overall 9 readers): 0.91/0.92; 0.70/0.67, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The lesion definitions for spinal MRI lesions compatible with SpA were updated by consensus and validated by a group of experienced readers. The lesions with the highest frequency and best reliability were fat and monomorphic inflammatory lesions at the VC

Inequity in biological DMARD prescription for spondyloarthritis across the globe : results from the ASAS-COMOSPA study

Objectives: The value of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in spondyloarthritis (SpA) is well recognised, but global access to these treatments can be limited due to high costs and other factors. This study explores country variation in the use of bDMARDs in SpA in relation to country-level socioeconomic factors. Methods: Patients fulfilling the Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) SpA criteria in the multinational, cross-sectional ASAS Comorbidities in Spondyloarthritis study were studied. Current use of bDMARDs or conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) was investigated in separate models, with multilevel logistic regression analysis, taking the country level into account. Contribution of socioeconomic factors, including country health expenditures, gross domestic product and human development index as independent country-level factors, was explored individually, in models adjusted for sociodemographic as well as clinical variables. Results: In total, 3370 patients from 22 countries were included (mean (SD) age 43 (14) years; 66% male; 88% axial disease). Across countries, 1275 (38%) patients were bDMARD users. Crude mean bDMARD use varied between 5% (China) to 74% (Belgium). After adjustment for relevant sociodemographic and clinical variables, important variation in bDMARD use across countries remained (P<0.001). Country-level socioeconomic factors, specifically higher health expenditures, were related to higher bDMARD uptake, though not meeting statistical significance (OR 1.96; 95% CI 0.94 to 4.10). csDMARD uptake was significantly lower in countries with higher health expenditures (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.65). Similar trends were seen with the other socioeconomic variables. Conclusions: There remains important residual variation across countries in bDMARD uptake of patients with SpA followed in specialised SpA centres. This is independent of well-known factors for bDMARD use such as clinical and country-level socioeconomic factors

MRI lesions of the spine in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: an update of lesion definitions and validation by the ASAS MRI working group

Baraliakos X, Ostergaard M, Lambert RG, et al. MRI lesions of the spine in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: an update of lesion definitions and validation by the ASAS MRI working group. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2022.OBJECTIVES: Spinal MRI is used to visualise lesions associated with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). The ASAS MRI working group (WG) updated and validated the definitions for inflammatory and structural spinal lesions in the context of axSpA.; METHODS: After review of the existing literature on all possible types of spinal MRI pathologies in axSpA, the group (12 rheumatologists and two radiologists) consented on the required revisions of lesion definitions compared with the existing nomenclature of 2012. In a second step, using 62 MRI scans from the ASAS classification cohort, the proposed definitions were validated in a multireader campaign by global (absent/present) and detailed (inflammation and structural) lesion assessment at the vertebral corner (VC), vertebral endplate, facet joints, transverse processes, lateral and posterior elements. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for analysis.; RESULTS: Revisions were made for both inflammatory (bone marrow oedema, BMO) and structural (fat, erosion, bone spur and ankylosis) lesions, including localisation (central vs lateral), extension (VC vs vertebral endplate) and extent (minimum number of slices needed), while new definitions were suggested for the type of lesion based on lesion maturity (VC monomorphic vs dimorphic). The most reliably assessed lesions were VC fat lesion and VC monomorphic BMO (ICC (mean of all 36 reader pairs/overall 9 readers): 0.91/0.92; 0.70/0.67, respectively.; CONCLUSIONS: The lesion definitions for spinal MRI lesions compatible with SpA were updated by consensus and validated by a group of experienced readers. The lesions with the highest frequency and best reliability were fat and monomorphic inflammatory lesions at the VC. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field. METHODS: An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items. RESULTS: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high. CONCLUSIONS: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.status: publishe