-
Clinical Rheumatology Aug 2021Radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (also known as ankylosing spondylitis [AS]) is a chronic immune-mediated arthritis characterized by inflammation of the axial...
Radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (also known as ankylosing spondylitis [AS]) is a chronic immune-mediated arthritis characterized by inflammation of the axial skeleton, peripheral joints, and entheses. It is estimated that 1 in every 200 people are affected by AS, making it an important healthcare and socioeconomic issue. In this review, we aim to explore the current understanding of AS risk factors and provide a comprehensive update. Multiple search strings were used to identify articles of interest published in PubMed between January 1, 2013, and February 1, 2021. On the basis of the literature review and analysis, we present up-to-date information on the risk factors of developing AS and our viewpoints on disease onset and progression. Multiple genetic and nongenetic risk factors have been suggested in the onset of AS. HLA-B27 is known to have a strong association with the disease, but other genes have been implicated in disease development. Aside from genetics, other factors are thought to be involved; up to 70% of patients with AS have subclinical intestinal inflammation, suggesting that the origin of the disease may be in the gut. The exact mechanism by which AS onset begins is most likely complex and multifactorial. Key Points • It remains unclear how interactions between genes, microbes, mechanical stress, gender, and other environmental and lifestyle factors predispose patients to the development of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). • The exact mechanisms of AS are complex and multifactorial which will require much future research • Recognizing the risk factors, as well as understanding gene-environment interactions, may offer valuable insights into the etiology of AS and have important implications for diagnosis and treatment strategies.
Topics: HLA-B27 Antigen; Humans; Inflammation; Risk Factors; Spondylarthritis; Spondylitis, Ankylosing
PubMed: 33754220
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-021-05679-7 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Feb 2016Despite Level 1b evidence and international consensus that exercise is beneficial in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), there is a paucity of detailed information to guide... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Despite Level 1b evidence and international consensus that exercise is beneficial in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), there is a paucity of detailed information to guide exercise prescription, including the type and dosage of exercise required for the most benefit. This collaborative project, combining evidence with clinical expertise, was established to develop practical recommendations to guide sustainable exercise prescription for individuals with AS.
METHODS
Using a modified Delphi technique, 10 clinical questions were generated and a systematic literature review was conducted for each. Draft recommendations were developed at a 2-day meeting, based on the integration of evidence summaries and expert opinion. Feedback was obtained from patient and health professional groups prior to finalisation.
RESULTS
Recommendations and practice points were developed for the following areas: assessment; monitoring; safety; disease management; AS-specific exercise; physical activity; dosage, adherence and setting. A framework was developed that could also be adapted for exercise in other chronic musculoskeletal conditions. Feedback suggests that the final consensus statement provides useful information for those seeking to provide best practice exercise prescription for people with AS.
CONCLUSION
The recommendations provide an up-to-date, evidence-based approach to the full range of issues related to the use of exercise in AS, as well as identifying evidence gaps for further research. Most importantly, this includes investigation of aspects of exercise programme design required to produce the largest effect, long-term adherence with exercise programs and the specific exercise requirements of sub-groups of people with AS. Widespread dissemination and implementation of the guidelines will be required to optimise exercise outcomes.
Topics: Consensus; Evidence-Based Medicine; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Spondylitis, Ankylosing
PubMed: 26493464
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2015.08.003 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Modern pharmacological research found that the chemical components of are mainly curcumin and turmeric volatile oil. Several recent randomized controlled trials (RCT)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Modern pharmacological research found that the chemical components of are mainly curcumin and turmeric volatile oil. Several recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have shown that curcumin improves symptoms and inflammation in patients with arthritis.
METHODS
Pubmed, Cochran Library, CNKI, and other databases were searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Then, the risk of bias of RCTs were assessed and data of RCTs were extracted. Finally, RevMan 5.3 was utilized for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine (29) RCTs involving 2396 participants and 5 types of arthritis were included. The arthritis included Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Osteoarthritis (OA), Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and gout/hyperuricemia. Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract were administered in doses ranging from 120 mg to 1500 mg for a duration of 4-36 weeks. In general, Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract showed safety in all studies and improved the severity of inflammation and pain levels in these arthritis patients. However, more RCTs are needed in the future to elucidate the effect of Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract supplementation in patients with arthritis, including RA, OA, AS and JIA.
CONCLUSION
Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract may improve symptoms and inflammation levels in people with arthritis. However, due to the low quality and small quantity of RCTs, the conclusions need to be interpreted carefully.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Curcuma; Curcumin; Humans; Inflammation; Osteoarthritis; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spondylitis, Ankylosing
PubMed: 35935936
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.891822 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2022This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions supervised by a physiotherapist in patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis,... (Review)
Review
This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions supervised by a physiotherapist in patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis, PROSPERO Protocol number CRD42020209453. Five databases (PubMed, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science Core, and EMBASE) and reference lists with relevant articles were searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions supervised by a physiotherapist were compared with usual care or home-based exercise programmes. Two investigators independently screened eligible studies. A total of 12 RCTs satisfied eligible criteria. The risk of bias ranged between medium and high. The meta-analysis results indicated that between supervised physiotherapy and usual care, the former was significantly associated with improvement in disease activity (standardised mean difference = -0.37, 95% CI, -0.64; -0.11; < 0.001, I = 71.25%, = 629), and functional capacity (standardised mean difference = -0.36, 95% CI, -0.61; -0.12, < 0.05; = 629). No statistically significant differences emerged when interventions were compared with home-based exercise programmes. Supervised physiotherapy is more effective than usual care in improving disease activity, functional capacity, and pain in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. No significant improvements emerged when supervised physiotherapy and home-based exercise programmes were compared. Further investigation and RCTs with larger samples are needed.
PubMed: 35052296
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10010132 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Exercise programmes are often recommended for managing ankylosing spondylitis (AS), to reduce pain and improve or maintain functional capacity. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Exercise programmes are often recommended for managing ankylosing spondylitis (AS), to reduce pain and improve or maintain functional capacity.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of exercise programmes for people with AS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, PEDro, Scopus, and two trials registers to December 2018. We searched reference lists of identified systematic reviews and included studies, handsearched recent relevant conference proceedings, and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included reports of randomised controlled trials (RCT) of adults with AS that compared exercise therapy programmes with an inactive control (no intervention, waiting list) or usual care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs with 1579 participants with AS. Most participants were male (70%), the median age was 45 years (range 39 to 47), and the mean symptom duration was nine years. The most frequently used exercises were those designed to help improve strength, flexibility, stretching, and breathing. Most exercise programmes were delivered along with drug therapy or a biological agent. We judged most of the studies at unclear or high risk of bias for several domains. All 14 studies provided data obtained immediately upon completion of the exercise programme. The median exercise programme duration was 12 weeks (interquartile range (IQR) 8 to 16). Three studies (146 participants) provided data for medium-term follow-up (< 24 weeks after completion of the exercise programmes), and one (63 participants) for long-term follow-up (> 24 weeks after completion of the exercise programmes). Nine studies compared exercise programmes to no intervention; five studies compared them to usual care (including physiotherapy, medication, or self-management).Exercise programmes versus no interventionAll data were obtained immediately upon completion of the exercise programme.For physical function, measured by a self-reporting questionnaire (the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) scale, 0 to 10; lower is better), moderate-quality evidence showed a no important clinically meaningful improvement with exercise programmes (mean difference (MD) -1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.7 to -0.9; 7 studies, 312 participants; absolute reduction 13%, 95% CI 17% to 9%).For pain, measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0 to 10, lower is better), low-quality evidence showed an important clinically meaningful reduction of pain with exercise (MD -2.1, 95% CI -3.6 to -0.6; 6 studies, 288 participants; absolute reduction 21%, 95% CI 36% to 6%).For patient global assessment of disease activity, measured by a self-reporting questionnaire (the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scale, 0 to 10, lower is better), moderate-quality evidence showed no important clinically meaningful reduction with exercise (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.3 to -0.5; 6 studies, 262 participants; absolute reduction 9%, 95% CI 13% to 5%).For spinal mobility, measured by a self-reporting questionnaire (the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) scale, 0 to 10, lower is better), very low-quality evidence showed an improvement with exercise (MD -0.7 95%, -1.3 to -0.1; 5 studies, 232 participants) with no important clinical meaningful benefit (absolute reduction 7%, 95% CI 13% to 1%).For fatigue, measured on a VAS (0 to 10, lower is better), very low-quality evidence showed a no important clinically meaningful reduction with exercise (MD -1.4, 95% CI -2.7 to -0.1; 2 studies, 72 participants; absolute reduction 14%, 95% CI 27% to 1%).Exercise programmes versus usual careAll data were obtained immediately upon completion of the exercise programme.For physical function, measured by the BASFI scale, moderate-quality evidence showed an improvement with exercise (MD -0.4, 95% CI -0.6 to -0.2; 5 studies, 1068 participants). There was no important clinical meaningful benefit (absolute reduction 4%, 95% CI 6% to 2%).For pain, measured on a VAS (0 to 10, lower is better), moderate-quality evidence showed a reduction of pain with exercise (MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.9 to -0.1; 2 studies, 911 participants; absolute reduction 5%, 95% CI 9% to 1%). No important clinical meaningful benefit was found.For patient global assessment of disease activity, measured by the BASDAI scale, low-quality evidence showed a reduction with exercise (MD -0.7, 95% CI -1.3 to -0.1; 5 studies, 1068 participants), but it was not clinically important (absolute reduction 7%, 95% CI 13% to 1%) with important clinical meaningful benefitFor spinal mobility, measured by the BASMI scale, very low-quality evidence found a no important clinically meaningful improvement with exercise (MD -1.2, 95% CI -2.8 to 0.5; 2 studies, 85 participants; absolute reduction 12%, 95% CI 5% less to 28% more). There was no important clinical meaningful benefit.None of the studies measured fatigue.Adverse effectsWe found very low-quality evidence of the effect of exercise versus either no intervention, or usual care. We are uncertain of the potential for harm of exercises, due to low event rates, and a limited number of studies reporting events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that exercise programmes probably slightly improve function, may reduce pain, and probably slightly reduce global patient assessment of disease activity, when compared with no intervention, and measured upon completion of the programme. We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that exercise programmes probably have little or no effect on improving function or reducing pain, when compared with usual care, and may have little or no effect on reducing patient assessment of disease activity, when measured upon completion of the programmes. We are uncertain whether exercise programmes improve spinal mobility, reduce fatigue, or induce adverse effects.
PubMed: 31578051
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011321.pub2 -
Arthritis Care & Research Sep 2016To summarize the prevalence of spondyloarthritis (SpA) and its subtypes in the general population, and to identify demographic and methodologic characteristics that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To summarize the prevalence of spondyloarthritis (SpA) and its subtypes in the general population, and to identify demographic and methodologic characteristics that might explain heterogeneity in prevalence estimates.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant articles. Risk of bias was assessed and data were extracted. Pooled prevalences were calculated. Potential sources of heterogeneity were explored by subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis.
RESULTS
The prevalence of SpA ranged from 0.20% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.00-0.66) in South-East Asia to 1.61% (95% CI 1.27-2.00) in Northern Arctic communities; the prevalence of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) from 0.02% (95% CI 0.00-0.21) in Sub-Saharan Africa to 0.35% (95% CI 0.24-0.48) in Northern Arctic communities; and the prevalence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from 0.01% (95% CI 0.00-0.17) in the Middle East to 0.19% (95% CI 0.16-0.32) in Europe. The following characteristics were significantly associated with variation in prevalence of SpA, AS, and/or PsA: proportion of females, mean age of the sample, geographic area and setting (demographic characteristics), year of data collection, case finding, and case ascertainment (methodologic characteristics). For the other SpA subgroups, too few studies were available to conduct a meta-analysis, but prevalence estimates of reactive arthritis (range 0.0-0.2%), SpA related to inflammatory bowel disease (range 0.0-0.1%), and undifferentiated SpA (range 0.0-0.7%) were generally low.
CONCLUSION
SpA is a common disease, but with large variation in reported prevalence estimates, which can partly be explained by differences in demographic and methodologic characteristics. Particularly, geographic area as well as case finding account for a substantial part of the heterogeneity.
Topics: Humans; Prevalence; Spondylarthritis
PubMed: 26713432
DOI: 10.1002/acr.22831 -
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety Dec 2016Five anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents have received regulatory approval for use in rheumatology: adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, certolizumab, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Five anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents have received regulatory approval for use in rheumatology: adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Apart from their well-documented therapeutic value, it is still uncertain to what extent they are associated with an increased risk of infectious adverse events. Areas covered: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized studies to determine the effect of anti-TNF drugs on the occurrence of infectious adverse events (serious infections; tuberculosis; opportunistic infections; any infection). We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2014 to identify eligible studies in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis that evaluated anti-TNF drugs compared with placebo or no treatment. Expert opinion: Our study encompassed data from 71 randomized controlled trials involving 22,760 participants (range of follow-up: 1-36 months) and seven open label extension studies with 2,236 participants (range of follow-up: 6-48 months). Quantitative synthesis of the available data found statistically significant increases in the occurrence of any infections (20%), serious infections (40%), and tuberculosis (250%) associated with anti-TNF drug use, while the data for opportunistic infections were scarce. The quality of synthesized evidence was judged as moderate. Further evidence from registries and long-term epidemiological studies are needed to better define the relationship between anti-TNF agents and infection complications.
Topics: Adult; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Infections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 27924643
DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2016.1240783 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022To evaluate the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract in the treatment of autoimmune diseases.
METHODS
Databases such as Embase, Web of Science, PubMed and The Cochrane Library were searched from the database establishment to February 2022 to collect RCTs of Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. Then the literature was screened and the data were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of 34 records were included, involving 31 RCTs and 10 types of autoimmune disease. Among them, ankylosing spondylitis (AS) involves one RCT, Behcet 's disease (BD) involves one RCT, Crohn 's disease involves two RCTs, multiple sclerosis (MS) involves two RCTs, oral lichen planus involves six RCTs, psoriasis involves two RCTs, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) involves five RCTs, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) involves two RCTs, arteritis involves one RCT, ulcerative colitis (UC) involves nine RCTs. Among them, most of the RCTs of ulcerative colitis (UC), oral lichen planus, RA showed that curcumin and curcumin extracts improved clinical or laboratory results. Crohn ' s disease, MS, SLE, psoriasis included two RCTs; they all showed improvements (at least one RCT reported improvements in clinical outcomes). AS, BD and arteritis included only one RCT, and the clinical results showed improvement. However, due to the small number of RCTs and the small number of patients involved in each disease, there is still a need for more high-quality RCTs.
CONCLUSION
Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract had good clinical efficacy in the treatment of Psoriasis, UC and RA, so Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract could be used in the treatment of the above diseases in the future. The results of Meta-analysis showed that Curcumin and Curcuma longa Extract did not show efficacy in the treatment of oral lichen planus, while Takayasu arteritis, SLE, MS, AS, BD and CD did not report sufficient clinical data for meta-analysis. Therefore, large-sample, multi-center clinical trials are still needed for revision or validation.
Topics: Arteritis; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Colitis, Ulcerative; Crohn Disease; Curcuma; Curcumin; Humans; Lichen Planus, Oral; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Plant Extracts; Psoriasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spondylitis, Ankylosing
PubMed: 35979355
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.896476 -
BioDrugs : Clinical Immunotherapeutics,... Aug 2017A systematic review was conducted to explore the immunogenicity of biologic agents across inflammatory diseases and its potential impact on efficacy/safety. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review was conducted to explore the immunogenicity of biologic agents across inflammatory diseases and its potential impact on efficacy/safety.
METHODS
Literature searches were conducted through November 2016 to identify controlled and observational studies of biologics/biosimilars administered for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), psoriasis (Ps), Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis.
RESULTS
Of >21,000 screened publications, 443 were included. Anti-drug antibody (ADAb) rates varied widely among biologics across diseases (and are not directly comparable because of immunoassay heterogeneity); the highest overall rates were reported with infliximab (0-83%), adalimumab (0-54%), and infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 (21-52%), and the lowest with secukinumab (0-1%), ustekinumab (1-11%), etanercept (0-13%), and golimumab (0-19%). Most ADAbs were neutralizing, except those to abatacept and etanercept. ADAb+ versus ADAb- patients had lower rates of clinical response to adalimumab (RA, PsA, JIA, AS, Ps), golimumab (RA), infliximab (RA, PsA, AS, Ps), rituximab (RA), ustekinumab (Ps), and CT-P13 (RA, AS). Higher rates of infusion-related reactions were reported in infliximab- and CT-P13-treated ADAb+ patients. Background immunosuppressives/anti-proliferatives reduced biologic immunogenicity across diseases.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on reviewed reports, biologic/biosimilar immunogenicity differs among agents, with the highest rates observed with infliximab and adalimumab. As ADAb formation in biologic-/biosimilar-treated patients may increase the risk of lost response, the immunogenicity of these agents is an important (albeit not the only) consideration in the treatment decision-making process.
Topics: Abatacept; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Colitis, Ulcerative; Crohn Disease; Etanercept; Humans; Infliximab; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 28612180
DOI: 10.1007/s40259-017-0231-8 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jan 2021Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the...
OBJECTIVES
Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the current understanding of JAKi use based on a systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety.
METHODS
Existing data were evaluated by a steering committee and subsequently reviewed by a 29 person expert committee leading to the formulation of a consensus statement that may assist the clinicians, patients and other stakeholders once the decision is made to commence a JAKi. The committee included patients, rheumatologists, a gastroenterologist, a haematologist, a dermatologist, an infectious disease specialist and a health professional. The SLR informed the Task Force on controlled and open clinical trials, registry data, phase 4 trials and meta-analyses. In addition, approval of new compounds by, and warnings from regulators that were issued after the end of the SLR search date were taken into consideration.
RESULTS
The Task Force agreed on and developed four general principles and a total of 26 points for consideration which were grouped into six areas addressing indications, treatment dose and comedication, contraindications, pretreatment screening and risks, laboratory and clinical follow-up examinations, and adverse events. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined based on the SLR and levels of agreement were voted on for every point, reaching a range between 8.8 and 9.9 on a 10-point scale.
CONCLUSION
The consensus provides an assessment of evidence for efficacy and safety of an important therapeutic class with guidance on issues of practical management.
Topics: Adamantane; Advisory Committees; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Azetidines; Cytokines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Europe; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Niacinamide; Piperidines; Psoriasis; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Rheumatology; Spondylarthropathies; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Sulfonamides; Triazoles
PubMed: 33158881
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218398