The prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis in the UK: a cross-sectional cohort study

Background: Accurate prevalence data are important when interpreting diagnostic tests and planning for the health needs of a population, yet no such data exist for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in the UK. In this cross-sectional cohort study we aimed to estimate the prevalence of axSpA in a UK primary care population. Methods: A validated self-completed questionnaire was used to screen primary care patients with low back pain for inflammatory back pain (IBP). Patients with a verifiable pre-existing diagnosis of axSpA were included as positive cases. All other patients meeting the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) IBP criteria were invited to undergo further assessment including MRI scanning, allowing classification according to the European Spondyloarthropathy Study Group (ESSG) and ASAS axSpA criteria, and the modified New York (mNY) criteria for ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Results: Of 978 questionnaires sent to potential participants 505 were returned (response rate 51.6 %). Six subjects had a prior diagnosis of axSpA, 4 of whom met mNY criteria. Thirty eight of 75 subjects meeting ASAS IBP criteria attended review (mean age 53.5 years, 37 % male). The number of subjects satisfying classification criteria was 23 for ESSG, 3 for ASAS (2 clinical, 1 radiological) and 1 for mNY criteria. This equates to a prevalence of 5.3 % (95 % CI 4.0, 6.8) using ESSG, 1.3 % (95 % CI 0.8, 2.3) using ASAS, 0.66 % (95 % CI 0.28, 1.3) using mNY criteria in chronic back pain patients, and 1.2 % (95 % CI 0.9, 1.4) using ESSG, 0.3 % (95 % CI 0.13, 0.48) using ASAS, 0.15 % (95 % CI 0.02, 0.27) using mNY criteria in the general adult primary care population. Conclusions: These are the first prevalence estimates for axSpA in the UK, and will be of importance in planning for the future healthcare needs of this population. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN7687321

The information needs of people living with ankylosing spondylitis: a questionnaire survey

<p>BACKGROUND:Today, health care is patient-centred with patients more involved in medical decision making and taking an active role in managing their disease. It is important that patients are appropriately informed about their condition and that their health care needs are met. We examine the information utilisation, sources and needs of people with ankylosing spondylitis (AS).</p> <p>METHODS: Participants in an existing AS cohort study were asked to complete a postal or online questionnaire containing closed and open-ended questions, regarding their information access and needs. Participants were stratified by age and descriptive statistics were performed using STATA 11, while thematic analysis was performed on open-ended question narratives. Qualitative data was handled in Microsoft Access and explored for emerging themes and patterns of experiences.</p> <p>RESULTS: Despite 73% of respondents having internet access, only 49% used the internet to access information regarding AS. Even then, this was only infrequently. Only 50% of respondents reported accessing written information about AS, which was obtained mainly in specialist clinics. Women were more likely than men to access information (63% (women) 46% (men)) regardless of the source, while younger patients were more likely to use online sources. The main source of non-written information was the rheumatologist. Overall, the respondents felt there was sufficient information available, but there was a perception that the tone was often too negative. The majority (95%) of people would like to receive a regular newsletter about AS, containing positive practical and local information. Suggestions were also made for more information about AS to be made available to non-specialist medical professionals and the general public.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be sufficient information available for people with AS in the UK and this is mostly accessed by younger AS patients. Many patients, particularly men, choose not to access AS information and concerns were raised about its negative tone. Patients still rely on written and verbal information from their specialists. Future initiatives should focus on the delivery of more positive information, targeting younger participants in particular and increasing the awareness in the general population and wider non-specialist medical community.</p&gt

Imaging the spine in arthritis—a pictorial review

Spinal involvement is frequent in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and seronegative spondyloarthritides (SpA), and its diagnosis is important. Thus, MRI and CT are increasingly used, although radiography is the recommended initial examination. The purpose of this review is to present the typical radiographic features of spinal changes in RA and SpA in addition to the advantages of MRI and CT, respectively. RA changes are usually located in the cervical spine and can result in serious joint instability. Subluxation is diagnosed by radiography, but supplementary MRI and/or CT is always indicated to visualise the spinal cord and canal in patients with vertical subluxation, neck pain and/or neurological symptoms. SpA may involve all parts of the spine. Ankylosing spondylitis is the most frequent form of SpA and has rather characteristic radiographic features. In early stages it is characterised by vertebral squaring and condensation of vertebral corners, in later stages by slim ossifications between vertebral bodies, vertebral fusion, arthritis/ankylosis of apophyseal joints and ligamentous ossification causing spinal stiffness. The imaging features of the other forms of SpA can vary, but voluminous paravertebral ossifications often occur in psoriatic SpA. MRI can detect signs of active inflammation as well as chronic structural changes; CT is valuable for detecting fracture

New criteria for inflammatory back pain in patients with chronic back pain: a real patient exercise by experts from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)

Objective: Inflammatory back pain (IBP) is an important clinical symptom in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), and relevant for classification and diagnosis. In the present report, a new approach for the development of IBP classification criteria is discussed. Methods: Rheumatologists (n = 13) who are experts in SpA took part in a 2-day international workshop to investigate 20 patients with back pain and possible SpA. Each expert documented the presence/absence of clinical parameters typical for IBP, and judged whether IBP was considered present or absent based on the received information. This expert judgement was used as the dependent variable in a logistic regression analysis in order to identify those individual IBP parameters that contributed best to a diagnosis of IBP. The new set of IBP criteria was validated in a separate cohort of patients (n = 648). Results: Five parameters best explained IBP according to the experts. These were: (1) improvement with exercise (odds ratio (OR) 23.1); (2) pain at night (OR 20.4); (3) insidious onset (OR 12.7); (4) age at onset,40 years (OR 9.9); and (5) no improvement with rest (OR 7.7). If at least four out of these five parameters were fulfilled, the criteria had a sensitivity of 77.0% and specificity of 91.7% in the patients participating in the workshop, and 79.6% and 72.4%, respectively, in the validation cohort. Conclusion: This new approach with real patients defines a set of IBP definition criteria using overall expert judgement on IBP as the gold standard. The IBP experts' criteria are robust, easy to apply and have good face validity

What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention

Low back pain is a very common symptom. It occurs in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries and all age groups from children to the elderly population. Globally, years lived with disability caused by low back pain increased by 54% between 1990 and 2015, mainly because of population increase and ageing, with the biggest increase seen in low-income and middle-income countries. Low back pain is now the leading cause of disability worldwide. For nearly all people with low back pain, it is not possible to identify a specific nociceptive cause. Only a small proportion of people have a well understood pathological cause—eg, a vertebral fracture, malignancy, or infection. People with physically demanding jobs, physical and mental comorbidities, smokers, and obese individuals are at greatest risk of reporting low back pain. Disabling low back pain is over-represented among people with low socioeconomic status. Most people with new episodes of low back pain recover quickly; however, recurrence is common and in a small proportion of people, low back pain becomes persistent and disabling. Initial high pain intensity, psychological distress, and accompanying pain at multiple body sites increases the risk of persistent disabling low back pain. Increasing evidence shows that central pain-modulating mechanisms and pain cognitions have important roles in the development of persistent disabling low back pain. Cost, health-care use, and disability from low back pain vary substantially between countries and are influenced by local culture and social systems, as well as by beliefs about cause and effect. Disability and costs attributed to low back pain are projected to increase in coming decades, in particular in low-income and middle-income countries, where health and other systems are often fragile and not equipped to cope with this growing burden. Intensified research efforts and global initiatives are clearly needed to address the burden of low back pain as a public health problem

2010 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis

This first update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations on the management of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is based on the original paper, a systematic review of existing recommendations and the literature since 2005 and the discussion and agreement among 21 international experts, 2 patients and 2 physiotherapists in a meeting in February 2010. Each original bullet point was discussed in detail and reworded if necessary. Decisions on new recommendations were made — if necessary after voting. The strength of the recommendations (SOR) was scored on an 11-point numerical rating scale after the meeting by email. These recommendations apply to patients of all ages that fulfill the modified NY criteria for AS, independent of extra-articular manifestations, and they take into account all drug and non-drug interventions related to AS. Four overarching principles were introduced, implying that one bullet has been moved to this section. There are now 11 bullet points including 2 new ones, one related to extra-articular manifestations and one to changes in the disease course. With a mean score of 9.1 (range 8-10) the SOR was generally very good