Research ArticleArticle

2014 Update of the Canadian Rheumatology Association/Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Treatment Recommendations for the Management of Spondyloarthritis. Part II: Specific Management Recommendations

Sherry Rohekar, Jon Chan, Shirley M.L. Tse, Nigil Haroon, Vinod Chandran, Louis Bessette, Dianne Mosher, Cathy Flanagan, Kevin J. Keen, Karen Adams, Michael Mallinson, Carter Thorne, Proton Rahman, Dafna D. Gladman and Robert D. Inman
The Journal of Rheumatology April 2015, 42 (4) 665-681; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.141001

Abstract

Objective. The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) and the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) have collaborated to update the recommendations for the management of spondyloarthritis (SpA).

Methods. A working group was assembled and consisted of the SPARCC executive committee, rheumatologist leaders from SPARCC collaborating sites, Canadian rheumatologists from across the country with an interest in SpA (both academic and community), a rheumatology trainee with an interest in SpA, an epidemiologist/health services researcher, a member of the CRA executive, a member of the CRA therapeutics committee, and a patient representative from the Canadian Spondylitis Association. An extensive review was conducted of literature published from 2007 to 2014 involving the management of SpA. The working group created draft recommendations using multiple rounds of Web-based surveys and an in-person conference.

Results. Recommendations for the management of SpA were created. Part II: Specific Management Recommendations addresses management with nonpharmacologic methods, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories and analgesics, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, antibiotics, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, other biologic agents, and surgery. Also included are 10 modifications for application to juvenile SpA.

Conclusion. These recommendations were developed based on current literature and applied to a Canadian healthcare context. It is hoped that implementation of these recommendations will promote best practices in the treatment of SpA.

Key Indexing Terms:

To address rapid changes in spondyloarthritis (SpA) management, the Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA)/Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) presents the 2014 Update of the CRA/SPARCC Treatment Recommendations for the Management of Spondyloarthritis. We aim to inform best practices of the Canadian rheumatologists, primary care physicians, allied health professionals, patients, and policy makers.

These recommendations have been divided into 2 parts: (Part I) Principles of the Management of SpA, and (Part II) Specific Management Recommendations. Part I addresses optimal SpA management in Canada and has been presented previously, and the principles were largely derived from expert opinion1. Part II contains specific recommendations for treatment with a larger body of literature support. Supplementary data are available online at jrheum.org.

Recommendations were based upon the highest quality of evidence available at the time of this review. They are intended to promote best practices and improve delivery of healthcare for those with SpA. Recommendations should not be interpreted as rigid or legal standards, nor are they intended to replace the clinical judgment of rheumatologists and other trained SpA healthcare providers acting according to the individual needs of the patient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants, patient population, scope, development process, evidence-based literature review, grading evidence, and extended review methodology have been described previously1. Table 1 reviews levels of evidence (LOE) and strength of recommendation (SOR).

View this table:
Table 1.

Custom system for assigning LOE and SOR.

RESULTS

The CRA/SPARCC Specific Management Recommendations are summarized in Table 2. These recommendations may be applied to juvenile SpA (JSpA) enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) through modifications (Table 3). The LOE, SOR, and expert opinion score (EO) are listed for each recommendation. EO was evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “disagree completely” to “agree completely”. Barriers to implementation of individual recommendations are also described. These address elements of the healthcare system that may affect the applicability of the recommendations.

View this table:
Table 2.

2014 Update on the CRA/SPARCC Specific Treatment Recommendations for the Management of SpA.

View this table:
Table 3.

The 2014 Update on the CRA/SPARCC Treatment Recommendations for the Management of SpA for application to JSpA(ERA).

Specific Management Recommendations Nonpharmacological

Recommendation 1

Treatment includes education, exercise, physical therapy (PT), and the involvement in patient associations. PT and exercise in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) have been the subject of systematic literature reviews, finding positive effects for both, with PT having the greatest effect (LOE I, SOR A)2,3.

Systematic review of exercise in AS demonstrated small improvements in spinal mobility, but was limited by the poor quality of included studies (LOE II, SOR B)4.

Involvement in patient organizations is based upon expert opinion (LOE IV, SOR D).

Barriers to implementation include lack of reimbursement for services and geographical limitations to access.

Recommendation 2

Recommends smoking cessation. Smoking is associated with worse radiographic outcomes in axial SpA (axSpA); further, this relationship may be dose-dependent5,6. Smoking has been associated with worse inflammation and radiographic damage in early axSpA, and with radiographic severity even in longstanding disease7,8.

Smoking also harms patient outcomes, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index and functional status in both early and established SpA7,9,10,11,12,13,14. Again, this relationship may be dose-dependent15. Smoking also limits function in psoriatic arthritis (PsA)16.

The LOE is II and SOR is B for smoking cessation in SpA.

There are no barriers to the implementation of smoking cessation recommendations.

Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs (NSAID) and Analgesics

Recommendation 3

NSAID are first-line drug treatments for symptomatic patients with axSpA. An appropriate trial consists of at least 2 NSAID, each administered over a minimum of 2 weeks at maximum tolerated dosage, unless contraindicated.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCT) and posthoc analyses have demonstrated NSAID efficacy in AS in the long and short terms17,18,19,20,21. A metaanalysis of NSAID RCT showed a medium–large effect size for pain, function, and patient assessment of the disease22. NSAID may have the greatest effect in patients with AS who have elevated acute-phase reactants (APR)23.

Continuous NSAID may modify radiographic outcome in AS. An RCT of continuous versus on-demand celecoxib found that continuous users had less radiographic progression, even after adjusting for confounders24. Posthoc analysis demonstrated that this effect was restricted to those with elevated APR25. The GErman SPondyloarthritis Inception Cohort found no difference in radiographic progression with high NSAID intake overall, but less progression in those with baseline syndesmophytes and elevated C-reactive protein26.

The LOE for Recommendation 3 is I and SOR is A.

There are no barriers to implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendations 4–6

Address potential toxicities and methods to minimize adverse events from NSAID use. A literature review for these recommendations is beyond this article’s scope, but are addressed in a 2008 review paper27. The LOE and SOR for recommendations 4 and 5 are I and A, and for 6 they are I and B.

There are no barriers to the implementation of these recommendations.

Recommendation 7

Acetaminophen and opioids may be tried in patients with otherwise uncontrolled pain. To our knowledge, no trials address this issue (LOE IV, SOR D).

There are no barriers to the implementation of this recommendation.

Corticosteroids

Recommendation 8

Consider corticosteroid injections at sites of inflammation, including sacroiliac (SI) joints, peripheral joints, and entheses. Placebo-controlled trials of radiographic-guided SI joint injections showed significant improvements in pain with minimal adverse events28,29,30,31,32. One study was contradictory33. Computed tomography–guided SI injection decreased magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) inflammation31,32. Case series also supported SI joint injection28,34,35. The LOE and SOR for SI joint injection are I and A.

One prospective cohort study of intraarticular steroid injection in PsA demonstrated good response at 3 months36. No studies assessed intraarticular injections in other SpA, nor were there studies of entheseal injection. (LOE II, SOR B for intraarticular corticosteroid injection in PsA. LOE IV, SOR D for all other intraarticular or entheseal injections.)

A limitation to implementation of this recommendation is the difficulty of accessing radiographic-guided SI joint injections.

Recommendation 9

Consider a short course of systemic corticosteroids for specific manifestations of SpA, though sustained use is discouraged. An RCT of oral steroids in NSAID-resistant AS found high-dose prednisolone over 2 weeks was effective37. Interestingly, low-dose prednisolone was ineffective, contrary to prior practice of using steroid-responsiveness to discriminate mechanical from inflammatory back pain37. Two additional small studies have supported the use of pulse methylprednisolone in NSAID nonresponders38,39. Systemic corticosteroid use in PsA was historically discouraged owing to the concern of psoriasis flare, but low-dose corticosteroid use in PsA may be common40. The LOE and SOR of a brief course of systemic steroids in AS are I and A; and for all other SpA, IV and D.

There are no barriers to the implementation of this recommendation.

Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (DMARD)

Recommendation 10

There is no evidence for DMARD efficacy in axSpA.

A systematic review of methotrexate (MTX) for AS concluded there was “no evidence to support any benefit of MTX in the treatment of AS”41.

Sulfasalazine (SSZ) use in AS was also reviewed, showing reduction of morning stiffness and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), but no effect on pain, function, mobility, or enthesitis42,43,44. SSZ was compared head-to-head with etanercept (ETN) in the axSpA ASCEND (Ankylosing Spondylitis Study Comparing ENbrel and Sulfasalazine Dosed Weekly) and ESTHER (Enbrel Sulfasalazine Early Axial Spondyloarthritis) trials45,46. Though SSZ did improve some axial symptoms, ETN produced significantly greater improvements than SSZ45,47. ESTHER demonstrated that SSZ decreased MRI inflammation in axSpA, but minimally compared to ETN46. These studies lacked placebo control, affecting the ability to derive decisive conclusions regarding SSZ effectiveness in axSpA.

Two studies showed that leflunomide (LEF) was ineffective in active AS48,49.

Overall, Recommendation 10 is LOE I, SOR A.

There are no barriers to the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation 11

Addresses DMARD use in peripheral SpA based upon PsA data. DMARD use in PsA was recently extensively reviewed, and metaanalysis concluded that MTX was effective for peripheral arthritis50. Significant improvements were found in joint counts51,52,53, pain51,53, and ESR52,53. However, MTX did not affect radiographic progression54. Subsequently, a double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT of MTX 15 mg/week showed that MTX did not improve joint counts, APR, or patient-reported outcomes (PRO)55.

The above metaanalysis assessed SSZ use in peripheral PsA and found it to be effective, but minimally so50. SSZ also did not prevent radiographic progression56.

Effectiveness of LEF in PsA was also assessed50. A placebo-controlled RCT found LEF useful for peripheral arthritis and psoriasis57. Open trials have supported these results58,59. An observational study showed that LEF improved joint counts, dactylitis, and PRO60.

Overall, the LOE and SOR for the use of DMARD such as MTX, SSZ, and LEF in peripheral SpA (specifically peripheral PsA) are I and A. Our scoring metric assigns high levels to metaanalyses and RCT, regardless of potential flaws in study design. The effect of these DMARD, though positive, is clinically minimal.

Recommendation 12

Consider combination therapy with DMARD in peripheral SpA, particularly those with poor prognostic factors, greater disease activity, recent-onset disease, and monotherapy resistance (LOE IV, SOR D).

Recommendations 11 and 12 may be restricted in circumstances where patients have limited drug coverage.

Antibiotics

Recommendation 13

Consider testing antibiotics in post-Chlamydia chronic reactive arthritis (ReA). A review of antibiotics for ReA concluded that their effects were, in general, uncertain61. The regimen proposed for post-Chlamydia ReA is based upon 1 double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Followup studies to confirm these findings have not yet been performed. In view of the findings of the recent metaanalysis, the LOE is IV and the SOR for this recommendation is D62.

Significant barriers to implementation include often limited access to diagnosing physicians, and high drug costs.

Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors (TNFi)

Recommendation 14

Addresses administration, monitoring, and preventive measures that are suggested when prescribing TNFi in SpA (LOE IV, SOR D).

There are no barriers to the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation 15

No evidence supports the DMARD use before or concomitant with TNFi in axSpA, as reviewed in Recommendation 12 (LOE I, SOR A).

There are no barriers to the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation 16

TNFi are efficacious for axSpA. This details the clinical characteristics of patients suitable for treatment. A metaanalysis encompassing 2005–2009 concluded that evidence for treatment with TNFi was very high, and found TNFi were similarly effective in nonradiographic axSpA and AS63.

There has been extensive reporting of the effectiveness, safety, and reduction of MRI inflammation for each TNFi approved for axSpA in Canada: infliximab (IFX)64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74, ETN45,46,75,76,77,78, adalimumab (ADA)79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89, golimumab (GOL)90,91,92,93,94, and certolizumab pegol (CZP)95,96.

A prospective study also suggested that earlier TNFi treatment in AS reduced radiographic progression5.

The LOE and SOR for TNFi in axSpA are I and A.

Recommendation 16 also states that TNFi should be offered to those with persistent active axSpA despite NSAID treatment. These recommendations define active axial disease as the presence of 2 of the following: Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index > 4, elevated APR, or the presence of inflammatory lesions in the SI joint and/or spine on MRI. This definition of active disease is based on expert consensus; therefore, this portion of Recommendation 16 has an LOE IV and SOR D.

The major barrier to the implementation of this recommendation is drug cost. Even those privately insured may face a large co-payment. Patients may face lengthy application processes for drug access.

Recommendation 17

For peripheral SpA, offer TNFi to those with persistent inflammation despite a trial of NSAID and 1 DMARD. This recommendation is derived from PsA literature.

A review of PsA literature up to July 2011 included studies of IFX, ETN, ADA, and GOL97; all demonstrated TNFi efficacy in ACR composite outcomes and skin manifestations97. No studies specifically addressed TNFi use in psoriatic oligoarthritis97. A metaanalysis encompassing 1962–2010 and including studies of IFX, ETN, and ADA also supported these findings and demonstrated that TNFi repressed radiographic progression in PsA50.

ADA has also been shown to improve outcomes in non-AS, non-PsA peripheral SpA98.

TNFi use in peripheral SpA has an LOE I and SOR A. Recommendation 17 also advises that TNFi be used in those with persistent inflammation despite a trial of NSAID and 1 DMARD. This component of the recommendation is based on expert opinion (LOE IV, SOR D).

Cost remains the largest barrier to this recommendation’s implementation. Some patients may endure severe disease while waiting to fulfill public reimbursement criteria.

Recommendation 18

Consider TNFi treatment for unresponsive enthesitis and dactylitis. Two studies found TNFi were efficacious for enthesitis99,100. TNFi effect on enthesitis has been assessed as a secondary outcome by numerous PsA RCT, all demonstrating improvement97. No RCT directly addresses dactylitis treatment with TNFi, but a cohort study of PsA showed that TNFi treatment may be a predictor of improvement101. Dactylitis is frequently a secondary outcome in PsA RCT of TNFi97. IFX102,103, ETN104, ADA105, GOL106,107, and CZP108 improved dactylitis. The LOE and SOR for TNFi for enthesitis are I and A; for dactylitis, II and B. Patient characteristics for TNFi treatment are based on expert opinion (LOE IV, SOR D).

The major barrier to implementation of this recommendation is cost.

Recommendation 19

Many TNFi are available, including IFX, ETN, ADA, GOL, and CZP. Choice of TNFi is based upon mutual understanding between physician and patient. There are no head-to-head trials of TNFi, but a similar study design in Phase III RCT supports comparable efficacy (LOE I, SOR B).

There are no barriers to the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation 20

Defines clinical response to TNFi in both axial and peripheral SpA. These recommendations are consistent with current recommendations from the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, but are based on expert consensus (LOE IV, SOR D)21,109.

There are no barriers to the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation 21

TNFi choice should incorporate treatment of extraarticular manifestations. Several TNFi are licensed for extraarticular manifestations, including plaque psoriasis (IFX, ETN, ADA), Crohn’s disease (IFX, ADA), and ulcerative colitis (IFX, ADA, GOL)110. Treatment of uveitis with TNFi is off-label, but may influence drug choice. The LOE is I and the SOR is A for this recommendation.

Use of TNFi for the treatment of uveitis is currently off-label, and cost remains the largest barrier to implementation110.

Recommendation 22

There is no evidence that combining MTX with TNFi improves efficacy, but it may affect persistence in peripheral SpA. In AS, addition of MTX to IFX did not affect outcomes, infusion numbers, TNFi switching, or dosing111,112,113,114,115. In PsA, RCT demonstrated clinical and radiographic efficacy of several TNFi regardless of concomitant MTX102,106,116,117,118. However, observational studies and registries of PsA demonstrated that combining MTX with TNFi improved persistence119,120. The LOE and SOR for MTX in addition to TNF for efficacy are I and A; for treatment persistence in peripheral SpA, II and B.

There are no barriers to implementation.

Recommendation 23

TNFi nonresponders may benefit from TNFi switching. To our knowledge, no RCT has studied TNFi switching in AS, but numerous observational studies, registries, and retrospective studies support switching121,122,123,124,125,126. Switching has also been studied in PsA observational studies and registries127,128,129. CZP has been found to be effective in patients with PsA who have previously failed TNFi108. In overall SpA, response to second and third TNFi was high130. The Spanish Registry of Adverse Events of Biological Therapies in Rheumatic Diseases study also showed response to switching, though there was less retention of the second agent131. This recommendation has a LOE II and SOR B.

Implementation may be limited because of therapy cost.

Other Biologic Agents

Recommendation 24

Consider rituximab (RTX) in axSpA when TNFi are contraindicated. RTX is a monoclonal antibody against CD20+ B cells. One trial demonstrated that established, TNF-naive patients with AS were able to achieve clinical response to RTX while TNFi failures were unresponsive132. A registry of RTX in SpA also demonstrated moderate efficacy in TNFi-naive subjects133. Recommendation 24 has an LOE II and SOR B.

However, RTX is currently not approved for SpA treatment in Canada110. Cost is another barrier.

Recommendation 25

Consider ustekinumab (UST), a monoclonal antibody against interleukin 12/23, for SpA with concomitant moderate–severe psoriasis. The PSUMMIT-I RCT found significant improvements in clinical outcomes and good safety with UST134. A double-blind RCT of patients with PsA and ≥ 3% body surface area psoriasis also showed that UST reduced arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and skin lesions, and improved function135. UST was also found to reduce progression of radiographic damage in PsA136. The LOE and SOR for this recommendation are I and A. UST is approved for PsA treatment in Canada110.

Though UST has been approved, it does not appear on the provincial formulary universally. Cost is also an obstacle.

Recommendation 26

There is no evidence for the use of other biologics in SpA, including abatacept (ABA), tocilizumab (TCZ), and anakinra137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148. Interestingly, a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of ABA in PsA suggested that it may be effective at a dose of 10 mg/kg, potentially indicating a differential effect in peripheral versus axial disease137. As more data about non-TNFi biologics continue to emerge, the authors anticipate ongoing rapid change in this area. Currently, the LOE and SOR for ABA, TCZ, and anakinra are II and B, I and A, and II and B, respectively.

There are no barriers to the implementation of this recommendation.

Surgery

Recommendation 27

Consider total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with pain, disability, and damage, regardless of age. THA in AS has been studied through registries and case series149,150. Observational studies of THA in AS have shown good outcomes, even when performed at a young age151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162. The LOE and SOR for this recommendation are II and B. No studies exist of THA in peripheral SpA (LOE IV, SOR D).

Barriers to implementation include long waiting lists and access to specialized surgical centers.

Recommendation 28

Studies of spinal surgical interventions in SpA are largely case series showing positive effects (LOE III, SOR C)163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176. A detailed review of these surgical procedures is beyond the scope of this paper. Recommendation 28 has LOE III and SOR C.

The major barrier to the implementation of this recommendation is the limited access to specialized surgical centers.

Juvenile SpA

JSpA typically presents with more peripheral and entheseal involvement compared with adults177. It includes several overlapping subtypes: juvenile ankylosing spondylitis (JAS), juvenile PsA, reactive arthritis, enteropathic arthritis, and undifferentiated disease called ERA177. Currently, ERA is the most common form of SpA seen among children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)177 and the recommendations will address this population specifically. Because of shared familial and genetic predispositions, JSpA(ERA) may be thought of as an on-a-continuum-of disease with adult SpA177. Indeed, many adult rheumatologists in Canada will manage patients with JSpA(ERA) who have passed the age of 18. This section of the 2014 Update of the CRA/SPARCC Recommendations for the Management of SpA will address adaptations of the adult SpA recommendations that may be applied to JSpA(ERA).

Nonpharmacological

Recommendation 1

Physical activity is encouraged in JSpA(ERA). Though patients with JIA have reduced aerobic and anaerobic fitness178,179, participation in exercise does not exacerbate disease180. Single-blind RCT of exercise in JIA also showed improved function and quality of life181,182. Note that these studies do not specifically assess exercise in JSpA (LOE I, SOR B).

There are no barriers to the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation 2

Peripheral arthritis and enthesitis involving the foot and ankle are common. Use of foot orthotics is supported by a randomized trial that may have included patients with ERA, but did not specifically address JSpA(ERA). The LOE is I and the SOR is B183.

Implementation of this recommendation may be limited because of cost.

NSAID and Analgesics

Recommendation 3

Peripheral arthritis is more common in JSpA(ERA). Patients should be treated with a longer NSAID trial (1–2 mos; LOE IV, SOR D).

There are no barriers to the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation 4

Sacroiliitis in JSpA(ERA) can be managed with NSAID according to the adult axSpA recommendations. To our knowledge, no trials in JSpA(ERA) exist (LOE IV, SOR D).

There are no barriers to the implementation of this recommendation.

Corticosteroids

Recommendation 5

There are no modifications. Only 1 study specifically addresses JSpA184. Most data are extrapolated from studies of JIA (LOE I, SOR B)185,186,187,188,189,190.

DMARD

Recommendation 6

There are no modifications to the adult recommendations.

Only 2 RCT have assessed SSZ in a pediatric population. In patients with JAS or seronegative enthesopathy and arthropathy, SSZ did not improve primary outcomes, but improved patient and physician assessments of disease activity191. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of SSZ in juvenile chronic arthritis (including JSpA) demonstrated efficacy and safety in oligo- and polyarticular arthritis192. Longterm followup showed prolonged benefit193. Chart reviews and open-label studies also support SSZ use194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205.

There are no studies of MTX in JSpA(ERA). One double-blind placebo-controlled RCT of MTX in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) showed improvements in joint pain, motion, and APR206. Two additional positive RCT exist in JIA207,208, as do open-label and retrospective studies209,210,211,212,213.

As with MTX, there are no studies of LEF in JSpA(ERA). An RCT of LEF versus MTX in polyarticular JRA showed that both produced improvement214. An open-label study in JRA also demonstrated efficacy and durability215 (LOE I, SOR A for SSZ; LOE III, SOR C for MTX and LEF).

Antibiotics

Recommendation 7

There are no trials of antibiotics in the treatment of JSpA(ERA). There are no modifications (LOE IV, SOR D).

TNF Inhibitors

Recommendation 8

TNFi are beneficial in JSpA(ERA) and should be prescribed according to predominantly axial or peripheral SpA recommendations. TNFi for JSpA(ERA) treatment include ETN, ADA, and IFX. There is only 1 TNFi RCT in JSpA that demonstrated significant improvements in joint count, ESR, MDGA, and patient global assessment216. Open-label studies of IFX217,218,219 and ETN217,220 also show TNFi efficacy. Case reports/series of IFX221,222 and ETN223 also support TNFi use. A registry showed that ADA was effective in DMARD-resistant ERA219. An RCT of ADA in ERA has also shown immediate and sustained efficacy224. Several studies have examined the effectiveness of TNFi in JIA (which may include ERA), but an extensive review is considered beyond this paper’s scope. LOE I, SOR A for IFX and ADA in JSpA(ERA); LOE II, SOR B for ETN.

TNFi use in JSpA(ERA) has the same barriers to implementation as are present in adults.

Other Biologic Agents

Recommendation 9

To the best of our knowledge, other biologic agents in JSpA(ERA) have not been studied (LOE IV, SOR D).

Surgery

Recommendation 10

There are no specific modifications to the adult SpA recommendations with, to our knowledge, no studies found in JSpA(ERA). The LOE is IV and the SOR is D.

DISCUSSION

The 2014 Update on the CRA/SPARCC Treatment Recommendations for the Management of Spondyloarthritis was developed by a national working group using current literature containing 28 specific treatment recommendations. A treatment algorithm is proposed in Figure 1. Also included are 10 modifications for application to the JSpA(ERA) population. Of note, the majority of these recommendations are based upon evidence from studies of AS and PsA, but we are using these data to inform our recommendations for axial and peripheral SpA in general.

Treatment algorithm for SpA. SpA: spondyloarthritis; NSAID: nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs; SI: sacroiliac; axSpA: axial SpA; DMARD: disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; MTX: methotrexate; LEF: leflunomide; SSZ: sulfasalazine; TNFi: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.
Figure 1.

Treatment algorithm for SpA. SpA: spondyloarthritis; NSAID: nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs; SI: sacroiliac; axSpA: axial SpA; DMARD: disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; MTX: methotrexate; LEF: leflunomide; SSZ: sulfasalazine; TNFi: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The intent of these recommendations is to inform Canadian rheumatologists, primary care physicians, internists and other healthcare providers, persons with SpA, insurance payers, government agencies, and formularies. It is recognized that each patient is unique and that recommendations cannot be blindly applied to all. Each treating physician should use these recommendations along with their clinical judgment and in partnership with their patients. Ideal SpA management is individualized and specific to each particular patient.

Many questions about SpA management remain unanswered, and barriers to the implementation of these recommendations must be addressed. As the field of SpA management and treatment evolves, updates will be needed.

ONLINE SUPPLEMENT

Supplementary data for this article are available online at jrheum.org.

  • Accepted for publication December 22, 2014.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Rohekar A,
    2. Chan J,
    3. Tse SM,
    4. Haroon N,
    5. Chandran V,
    6. Bessette L,
    7. et al.
    2014 Update on the Canadian Rheumatology Association/Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Treatment Recommendations for the Management of Spondyloarthritis. Part I: principles of the management of spondyloarthritis in Canada. J Rheumatology 2014;42:654–64.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. van den Berg R,
    2. Baraliakos X,
    3. Braun J,
    4. van der Heijde D
    . First update of the current evidence for the management of ankylosing spondylitis with non-pharmacological treatment and non-biologic drugs: a systematic literature review for the ASAS/EULAR management recommendations in ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology 2012;51:1388–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Dagfinrud H,
    2. Kvien TK,
    3. Hagen KB
    . The Cochrane review of physiotherapy interventions for ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2005;32:1899–906.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Dagfinrud H,
    2. Halvorsen S,
    3. Vollestad NK,
    4. Niedermann K,
    5. Kvien TK,
    6. Hagen KB
    . Exercise programs in trials for patients with ankylosing spondylitis: do they really have the potential for effectiveness? Arthritis Care Res 2011;63:597–603.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Poddubnyy D,
    2. Haibel H,
    3. Listing J,
    4. Marker-Hermann E,
    5. Zeidler H,
    6. Braun J,
    7. et al.
    Cigarette smoking has a dose-dependent impact on progression of structural damage in the spine in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: results from the GErman SPondyloarthritis inception cohort (GESPIC). Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1430–2.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Haroon N,
    2. Inman RD,
    3. Learch TJ,
    4. Weisman MH,
    5. Lee M,
    6. Rahbar MH,
    7. et al.
    The impact of tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors on radiographic progression in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:2645–54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Chung HY,
    2. Machado P,
    3. van der Heijde D,
    4. D’Agostino MA,
    5. Dougados M
    . Smokers in early axial spondyloarthritis have earlier disease onset, more disease activity, inflammation and damage, and poorer function and health-related quality of life: results from the DESIR cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:809–16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Ward MM,
    2. Hendrey MR,
    3. Malley JD,
    4. Learch TJ,
    5. Davis JC Jr,
    6. Reveille JD,
    7. et al.
    Clinical and immunogenetic prognostic factors for radiographic severity in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:859–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Ward MM,
    2. Weisman MH,
    3. Davis JC Jr,
    4. Reveille JD
    . Risk factors for functional limitations in patients with long-standing ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 2005;53:710–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Kaan U,
    2. Ferda O
    . Evaluation of clinical activity and functional impairment in smokers with ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatol Int 2005;25:357–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Doran MF,
    2. Brophy S,
    3. MacKay K,
    4. Taylor G,
    5. Calin A
    . Predictors of longterm outcome in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2003;30:316–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Ward MM
    . Predictors of the progression of functional disability in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2002;29:1420–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Averns HL,
    2. Oxtoby J,
    3. Taylor HG,
    4. Jones PW,
    5. Dziedzic K,
    6. Dawes PT
    . Smoking and outcome in ankylosing spondylitis. Scand J Rheumatol 1996;25:138–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Bodur H,
    2. Ataman S,
    3. Rezvani A,
    4. Bugdayci DS,
    5. Cevik R,
    6. Birtane M,
    7. et al.
    Quality of life and related variables in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Qual Life Res 2011;20:543–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Mattey DL,
    2. Dawson SR,
    3. Healey EL,
    4. Packham JC
    . Relationship between smoking and patient-reported measures of disease outcome in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2011;38:2608–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Tillett W,
    2. Jadon D,
    3. Shaddick G,
    4. Cavill C,
    5. Korendowych E,
    6. de Vries CS,
    7. et al.
    Smoking and delay to diagnosis are associated with poorer functional outcome in psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1358–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. van der Heijde D,
    2. Baraf HS,
    3. Ramos-Remus C,
    4. Calin A,
    5. Weaver AL,
    6. Schiff M,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation of the efficacy of etoricoxib in ankylosing spondylitis: results of a fifty-two-week, randomized, controlled study. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:1205–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Gossec L,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Melian A,
    4. Krupa DA,
    5. James MK,
    6. Cavanaugh PF,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy of cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibition by etoricoxib and naproxen on the axial manifestations of ankylosing spondylitis in the presence of peripheral arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1563–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Sieper J,
    2. Klopsch T,
    3. Richter M,
    4. Kapelle A,
    5. Rudwaleit M,
    6. Schwank S,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of two different dosages of celecoxib with diclofenac for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis: results of a 12-week randomised, double-blind, controlled study. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:323–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Cinar M,
    2. Dinc A,
    3. Simsek I,
    4. Erdem H,
    5. Koc B,
    6. Pay S,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation of the short-term efficacy of NSAIDs on patients with active ankylosing spondylitis in daily practice: A 3-month, longitudinal, observational study. Rheumatol Int 2010;30:331–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Sieper J,
    2. Rudwaleit M,
    3. Baraliakos X,
    4. Brandt J,
    5. Braun J,
    6. Burgos-Vargas R,
    7. et al.
    The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) handbook: a guide to assess spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68 Suppl 2:ii1–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Escalas C,
    2. Trijau S,
    3. Dougados M
    . Evaluation of the treatment effect of NSAIDs/TNF blockers according to different domains in ankylosing spondylitis: results of a meta-analysis. Rheumatology 2010;49:1317–25.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Benhamou M,
    2. Gossec L,
    3. Dougados M
    . Clinical relevance of C-reactive protein in ankylosing spondylitis and evaluation of the NSAIDs/coxibs’ treatment effect on C-reactive protein. Rheumatology 2010;49:536–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Wanders A,
    2. Heijde Dv,
    3. Landewé R,
    4. Béhier JM,
    5. Calin A,
    6. Olivieri I,
    7. et al.
    Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs reduce radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:1756–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Kroon F,
    2. Landewé R,
    3. Dougados M,
    4. van der Heijde D
    . Continuous NSAID use reverts the effects of inflammation on radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1623–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Poddubnyy D,
    2. Rudwaleit M,
    3. Haibel H,
    4. Listing J,
    5. Marker-Hermann E,
    6. Zeidler H,
    7. et al.
    Effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on radiographic spinal progression in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: results from the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1616–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Song IH,
    2. Poddubnyy DA,
    3. Rudwaleit M,
    4. Sieper J
    . Benefits and risks of ankylosing spondylitis treatment with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58:929–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Maugars Y,
    2. Mathis C,
    3. Vilon P,
    4. Prost A
    . Corticosteroid injection of the sacroiliac joint in patients with seronegative spondylarthropathy. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35:564–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Luukkainen R,
    2. Nissilä M,
    3. Asikainen E,
    4. Sanila M,
    5. Lehtinen K,
    6. Alanaatu A,
    7. et al.
    Periarticular corticosteroid treatment of the sacroiliac joint in patients with seronegative spondylarthropathy. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1999;17:88–90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Maugars Y,
    2. Mathis C,
    3. Berthelot JM,
    4. Charlier C,
    5. Prost A
    . Assessment of the efficacy of sacroiliac corticosteroid injections in spondylarthropathies: a double-blind study. Br J Rheumatol 1996;35:767–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Bollow M,
    2. Braun J,
    3. Taupitz M,
    4. Haberle J,
    5. Reibhauer BH,
    6. Paris S,
    7. et al.
    CT-guided intraarticular corticosteroid injection into the sacroiliac joints in patients with spondyloarthropathy: Indication and followup with contrast-enhanced MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996;20:512–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Braun J,
    2. Bollow M,
    3. Seyrekbasan F,
    4. Haberle HJ,
    5. Eggens U,
    6. Mertz A,
    7. et al.
    Computed tomography guided corticosteroid injection of the sacroiliac joint in patients with spondyloarthropathy with sacroiliitis: clinical outcome and followup by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. J Rheumatol 1996;23:659–64.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Hanly JG,
    2. Mitchell M,
    3. MacMillan L,
    4. Mosher D,
    5. Sutton E
    . Efficacy of sacroiliac corticosteroid injections in patients with inflammatory spondyloarthropathy: results of a 6 month controlled study. J Rheumatol 2000;27:719–22.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Karabacakoglu A,
    2. Karakose S,
    3. Ozerbil OM,
    4. Odev K
    . Fluoroscopy-guided intraarticular corticosteroid injection into the sacroiliac joints in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Acta Radiol 2002;43:425–7.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Dussault RG,
    2. Kaplan PA,
    3. Anderson MW
    . Fluoroscopy-guided sacroiliac joint injections. Radiology 2000;214:273–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Eder L,
    2. Chandran V,
    3. Ueng J,
    4. Bhella S,
    5. Lee KA,
    6. Rahman P,
    7. et al.
    Predictors of response to intra-articular steroid injection in psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology 2010;49:1367–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Haibel H,
    2. Fendler C,
    3. Listing J,
    4. Callhoff J,
    5. Braun J,
    6. Sieper J
    . Efficacy of oral prednisolone in active ankylosing spondylitis: results of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled short-term trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:243–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Ejstrup L,
    2. Peters ND
    . Intravenous methylprednisolone pulse therapy in ankylosing spondylitis. Dan Med Bull 1985;32:231–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Peters ND,
    2. Ejstrup L
    . Intravenous methylprednisolone pulse therapy in ankylosing spondylitis. Scand J Rheumatol 1992;21:134–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Zink A,
    2. Thiele K,
    3. Huscher D,
    4. Listing J,
    5. Sieper J,
    6. Krause A,
    7. et al.
    Healthcare and burden of disease in psoriatic arthritis. A comparison with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2006;33:86–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Chen J,
    2. Veras MM,
    3. Liu C,
    4. Lin J
    . Methotrexate for ankylosing spondylitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;2:CD004524.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Chen J,
    2. Liu C
    . Sulfasalazine for ankylosing spondylitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;CD004800.
  43. 43.↵
    1. Chen J,
    2. Liu C
    . Is sulfasalazine effective in ankylosing spondylitis? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Rheumatol 2006;33:722–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Steiman AJ,
    2. Pope JE,
    3. Thiessen-Philbrook H,
    4. Li L,
    5. Barnabe C,
    6. Kalache F,
    7. et al.
    Non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) improve pain in inflammatory arthritis (IA): a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials. Rheumatol Int 2013;33:1105–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Braun J,
    2. van der Horst-Bruinsma IE,
    3. Huang F,
    4. Burgos-Vargas R,
    5. Vlahos B,
    6. Koenig AS,
    7. et al.
    Clinical efficacy and safety of etanercept versus sulfasalazine in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized, double-blind trial. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:1543–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Song IH,
    2. Hermann K,
    3. Haibel H,
    4. Althoff CE,
    5. Listing J,
    6. Burmester G,
    7. et al.
    Effects of etanercept versus sulfasalazine in early axial spondyloarthritis on active inflammatory lesions as detected by whole-body MRI (ESTHER): a 48-week randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:590–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. van der Heijde D,
    2. Braun J,
    3. Dougados M,
    4. Sieper J,
    5. Pedersen R,
    6. Szumski A,
    7. et al.
    Sensitivity and discriminatory ability of the ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score in patients treated with etanercept or sulphasalazine in the ASCEND trial. Rheumatology 2012;51:1894–905.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. van Denderen JC,
    2. van der Paardt M,
    3. Nurmohamed MT,
    4. de Ryck YM,
    5. Dijkmans BA,
    6. van der Horst-Bruinsma IE
    . Double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study of leflunomide in the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1761–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Haibel H,
    2. Rudwaleit M,
    3. Braun J,
    4. Sieper J
    . Six months open label trial of leflunomide in active ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:124–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Ash Z,
    2. Gaujoux-Viala C,
    3. Gossec L,
    4. Hensor EM,
    5. FitzGerald O,
    6. Winthrop K,
    7. et al.
    A systematic literature review of drug therapies for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: current evidence and meta-analysis informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:319–26.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Scarpa R,
    2. Peluso R,
    3. Atteno M,
    4. Manguso F,
    5. Spano A,
    6. Iervolino S,
    7. et al.
    The effectiveness of a traditional therapeutical approach in early psoriatic arthritis: Results of a pilot randomised 6-month trial with methotrexate. Clin Rheumatol 2008;27:823–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Black RL,
    2. O’Brien WM,
    3. Vanscott EJ,
    4. Auerbach R,
    5. Eisen AZ,
    6. Bunim JJ
    . Methotrexate therapy in psoriatic arthritis; double-blind study on 21 patients. JAMA 1964;189:743–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Willkens RF,
    2. Williams HJ,
    3. Ward JR,
    4. Egger MJ,
    5. Reading JC,
    6. Clements PJ,
    7. et al.
    Randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of low-dose pulse methotrexate in psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1984;27:376–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Abu-Shakra M,
    2. Gladman DD,
    3. Thorne JC,
    4. Long J,
    5. Gough J,
    6. Farewell VT
    . Longterm methotrexate therapy in psoriatic arthritis: clinical and radiological outcome. J Rheumatol 1995;22:241–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Kingsley GH,
    2. Kowalczyk A,
    3. Taylor H,
    4. Ibrahim F,
    5. Packham JC,
    6. McHugh NJ,
    7. et al.
    A randomized placebo-controlled trial of methotrexate in psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology 2012;51:1368–77.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Rahman P,
    2. Gladman DD,
    3. Cook RJ,
    4. Zhou Y,
    5. Young G
    . The use of sulfasalazine in psoriatic arthritis: a clinic experience. J Rheumatol 1998;25:1957–61.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Kaltwasser JP,
    2. Nash P,
    3. Gladman D,
    4. Rosen CF,
    5. Behrens F,
    6. Jones P,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of leflunomide in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis: a multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:1939–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Liang GC,
    2. Barr WG
    . Open trial of leflunomide for refractory psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. J Clin Rheumatol 2001;7:366–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Thami GP,
    2. Garg G
    . Leflunomide in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: a preliminary study. Arch Dermatol 2004;140:1288–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Behrens F,
    2. Finkenwirth C,
    3. Pavelka K,
    4. Stolfa J,
    5. Sipek-Dolnicar A,
    6. Thaci D,
    7. et al.
    Leflunomide in psoriatic arthritis: results from a large European prospective observational study. Arthritis Care Res 2013;65:464–70.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    1. Barber CE,
    2. Kim J,
    3. Inman RD,
    4. Esdaile JM,
    5. James MT
    . Antibiotics for treatment of reactive arthritis: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Rheumatol 2013;40:916–28.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. 62.↵
    1. Carter JD,
    2. Espinoza LR,
    3. Inman RD,
    4. Sneed KB,
    5. Ricca LR,
    6. Vasey FB,
    7. et al.
    Combination antibiotics as a treatment for chronic chlamydia-induced reactive arthritis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective trial. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:1298–307.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Baraliakos X,
    2. van den Berg R,
    3. Braun J,
    4. van der Heijde D
    . Update of the literature review on treatment with biologics as a basis for the first update of the ASAS/EULAR management recommendations of ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology 2012;51:1378–87.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. 64.↵
    1. Heldmann F,
    2. Brandt J,
    3. van der Horst-Bruinsma IE,
    4. Landewé R,
    5. Sieper J,
    6. Burmester GR,
    7. et al.
    The European ankylosing spondylitis infliximab cohort (EASIC): a European multicentre study of long term outcomes in patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with infliximab. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2011;29:672–80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Baraliakos X,
    2. Haibel H,
    3. Listing J,
    4. Sieper J,
    5. Braun J
    . Continuous longterm anti-TNF therapy does not lead to an increase in the rate of new bone formation over 8 years in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:710–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    1. Saougou I,
    2. Markatseli TE,
    3. Voulgari PV,
    4. Drosos AA
    . Maintained clinical response of infliximab treatment in ankylosing spondylitis: a 6-year longterm study. Joint Bone Spine 2010;77:325–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Konsta M,
    2. Sfikakis PP,
    3. Bournia VK,
    4. Karras D,
    5. Iliopoulos A
    . Absence of radiographic progression of hip arthritis during infliximab treatment for ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rheumatol 2013;32:1229–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Tenga G,
    2. Goëb V,
    3. Lequerré T,
    4. Bacquet-Deschryver H,
    5. Daragon A,
    6. Pouplin S,
    7. et al.
    A 3 mg/kg starting dose of infliximab in active spondyloarthritis resistant to conventional treatments is efficient, safe and lowers costs. Joint Bone Spine 2011;78:50–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Inman RD,
    2. Maksymowych WP;
    3. CANDLE Study Group
    . A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of low dose infliximab in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2010;37:1203–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. 70.↵
    1. Maksymowych WP,
    2. Salonen D,
    3. Inman RD,
    4. Rahman P,
    5. Lambert RG;
    6. CANDLE Study Group
    . Low-dose infliximab (3 mg/kg) significantly reduces spinal inflammation on magnetic resonance imaging in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized placebo-controlled study. J Rheumatol 2010;37:1728–34.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. 71.↵
    1. Mörck B,
    2. Pullerits R,
    3. Geijer M,
    4. Bremell T,
    5. Forsblad-d’Elia H
    . Infliximab dose reduction sustains the clinical treatment effect in active HLAB27 positive ankylosing spondylitis: a two-year pilot study. Mediators Inflamm 2013;2013:289845.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Ertenli I,
    2. Ozer S,
    3. Kiraz S,
    4. Apras SB,
    5. Akdogan A,
    6. Karadag O,
    7. et al.
    Infliximab, a TNF-α antagonist treatment in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: the impact on depression, anxiety and quality of life level. Rheumatol Int 2012;32:323–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Giardina AR,
    2. Ferrante A,
    3. Ciccia F,
    4. Impastato R,
    5. Miceli MC,
    6. Principato A,
    7. et al.
    A 2-year comparative open label randomized study of efficacy and safety of etanercept and infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatol Int 2010;30:1437–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Sieper J,
    2. Lenaerts J,
    3. Wollenhaupt J,
    4. Rudwaleit M,
    5. Mazurov VI,
    6. Myasoutova L,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of infliximab plus naproxen versus naproxen alone in patients with early, active axial spondyloarthritis: results from the double-blind, placebo-controlled INFAST study, Part 1. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:101–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. 75.↵
    1. Song IH,
    2. Weiss A,
    3. Hermann KG,
    4. Haibel H,
    5. Althoff CE,
    6. Poddubnyy D,
    7. et al.
    Similar response rates in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis after 1 year of treatment with etanercept: Results from the ESTHER trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:823–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.↵
    1. Song IH,
    2. Althoff CE,
    3. Haibel H,
    4. Hermann KG,
    5. Poddubnyy D,
    6. Listing J,
    7. et al.
    Frequency and duration of drug-free remission after 1 year of treatment with etanercept versus sulfasalazine in early axial spondyloarthritis: 2 year data of the ESTHER trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1212–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. 77.↵
    1. Song IH,
    2. Hermann KG,
    3. Haibel H,
    4. Althoff CE,
    5. Poddubnyy D,
    6. Listing J,
    7. et al.
    Relationship between active inflammatory lesions in the spine and sacroiliac joints and new development of chronic lesions on whole-body MRI in early axial spondyloarthritis: results of the ESTHER trial at week 48. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1257–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. 78.↵
    1. Lubrano E,
    2. Spadaro A,
    3. Marchesoni A,
    4. Olivieri I,
    5. Scarpa R,
    6. D’Angelo S,
    7. et al.
    The effectiveness of a biologic agent on axial manifestations of psoriatic arthritis. A twelve months observational study in a group of patients treated with etanercept. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2011;29:80–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    1. Sieper J,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Dougados M,
    4. Mease PJ,
    5. Maksymowych WP,
    6. Brown MA,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: results of a randomised placebo-controlled trial (ABILITY-1). Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:815–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. 80.↵
    1. Haibel H,
    2. Heldmann F,
    3. Braun J,
    4. Listing J,
    5. Kupper H,
    6. Sieper J
    . Longterm efficacy of adalimumab after drug withdrawal and retreatment in patients with active non-radiographically evident axial spondyloarthritis who experience a flare. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:2211–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Sieper J,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Dougados M,
    4. Brown LS,
    5. Lavie F,
    6. Pangan AL
    . Early response to adalimumab predicts longterm remission through 5 years of treatment in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:700–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. 82.↵
    1. Kimel M,
    2. Revicki D,
    3. Rao S,
    4. Fryback D,
    5. Feeny D,
    6. Harnam N,
    7. et al.
    Norms-based assessment of patient-reported outcomes associated with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2011;29:624–32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. Gooch K,
    3. Michel B,
    4. Herold M,
    5. Thorner A,
    6. Wong R,
    7. et al.
    Adalimumab improves sleep and sleep quality in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2011;38:79–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.↵
    1. Maksymowych WP,
    2. Gooch KL,
    3. Wong RL,
    4. Kupper H,
    5. van der Heijde D
    . Impact of age, sex, physical function, health-related quality of life, and treatment with adalimumab on work status and work productivity of patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2010;37:385–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. 85.↵
    1. Braun J,
    2. Rudwaleit M,
    3. Kary S,
    4. Kron M,
    5. Wong RL,
    6. Kupper H
    . Clinical manifestations and responsiveness to adalimumab are similar in patients with ankylosing spondylitis with and without concomitant psoriasis. Rheumatology 2010;49:1578–89.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. 86.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. Claudepierre P,
    3. Kron M,
    4. Kary S,
    5. Wong R,
    6. Kupper H
    . Effectiveness of adalimumab in treating patients with ankylosing spondylitis associated with enthesitis and peripheral arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 2010;12:R43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. Van den Bosch F,
    3. Kron M,
    4. Kary S,
    5. Kupper H
    . Effectiveness and safety of adalimumab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis or psoriatic arthritis and history of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Arthritis Res Ther 2010;12:R117.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    1. Kobayashi S,
    2. Harigai M,
    3. Mozaffarian N,
    4. Pangan AL,
    5. Sharma S,
    6. Brown LS,
    7. et al.
    A multicenter, open-label, efficacy, pharmacokinetic, and safety study of adalimumab in Japanese patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Mod Rheumatol 2012;22:589–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    1. Huang F,
    2. Gu J,
    3. Zhu P,
    4. Bao C,
    5. Xu J,
    6. Xu H,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in Chinese adults with active ankylosing spondylitis: results of a randomised, controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:587–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. 90.↵
    1. Inman RD,
    2. Davis JC Jr,
    3. Heijde Dv,
    4. Diekman L,
    5. Sieper J,
    6. Kim SI,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58:3402–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    1. Braun J,
    2. Deodhar A,
    3. Inman RD,
    4. van der Heijde D,
    5. Mack M,
    6. Xu S,
    7. et al.
    Golimumab administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks in ankylosing spondylitis: 104-week results of the GO-RAISE study. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:661–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. 92.↵
    1. Braun J,
    2. Baraliakos X,
    3. Hermann KG,
    4. van der Heijde D,
    5. Inman RD,
    6. Deodhar AA,
    7. et al.
    Golimumab reduces spinal inflammation in ankylosing spondylitis: MRI results of the randomised, placebo-controlled GO-RAISE study. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:878–84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  93. 93.↵
    1. van der Heijde D,
    2. Braun J,
    3. Deodhar A,
    4. Inman RD,
    5. Xu S,
    6. Mack ME,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of three enthesitis indices in a multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of golimumab in ankylosing spondylitis (GO-RAISE). Rheumatology 2013;52:321–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  94. 94.↵
    1. Wagner C,
    2. Visvanathan S,
    3. Braun J,
    4. van der Heijde D,
    5. Deodhar A,
    6. Hsu B,
    7. et al.
    Serum markers associated with clinical improvement in patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with golimumab. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:674–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  95. 95.↵
    1. Landewé R,
    2. Braun J,
    3. Deodhar A,
    4. Dougados M,
    5. Maksymowych WP,
    6. Mease PJ,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy of certolizumab pegol on signs and symptoms of axial spondyloarthritis including ankylosing spondylitis: 24-week results of a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled Phase 3 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:39–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. 96.↵
    1. Brooks M
    . Medscape: FDA clears certolizumab (cimzia) for ankylosing spondylitis. [Internet. Accessed January 13, 2015.] Available from: www.medscape.com/viewarticle/812822
  97. 97.↵
    1. Coates LC,
    2. Tillett W,
    3. Chandler D,
    4. Helliwell PS,
    5. Korendowych E,
    6. Kyle S,
    7. et al.
    The 2012 BSR and BHPR guideline for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis with biologics. Rheumatology 2013;52:1754–7.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  98. 98.↵
    1. Paramarta JE,
    2. De Rycke L,
    3. Heijda TF,
    4. Ambarus CA,
    5. Vos K,
    6. Dinant HJ,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of adalimumab for the treatment of peripheral arthritis is spondyloarthritis patients without ankylosing spondylitis or psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1793–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. 99.↵
    1. Marzo-Ortega H,
    2. McGonagle D,
    3. O’Connor P,
    4. Emery P
    . Efficacy of etanercept in the treatment of the entheseal pathology in resistant spondylarthropathy: a clinical and magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthritis Rheum 2001;44:2112–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    1. Dougados M,
    2. vam der Linden S,
    3. Leirisalo-Repo M,
    4. Huitfeldt B,
    5. Juhlin R,
    6. Veys E,
    7. et al.
    Sulfasalazine in the treatment of spondylarthropathy. A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:618–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    1. Gladman DD,
    2. Ziouzina O,
    3. Thavaneswaran A,
    4. Chandran V
    . Dactylitis in psoriatic arthritis: prevalence and response to therapy in the biologic era. J Rheumatol 2013;40:1357–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  102. 102.↵
    1. Antoni C,
    2. Krueger GG,
    3. de Vlam K,
    4. Birbara C,
    5. Beutler A,
    6. Guzzo C,
    7. et al.
    Infliximab improves signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis: results of the IMPACT 2 trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1150–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  103. 103.↵
    1. Antoni CE,
    2. Kavanaugh A,
    3. Kirkham B,
    4. Tutuncu Z,
    5. Burmester GR,
    6. Schneider U,
    7. et al.
    Sustained benefits of infliximab therapy for dermatologic and articular manifestations of psoriatic arthritis: results from the infliximab multinational psoriatic arthritis controlled trial (IMPACT). Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:1227–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. 104.↵
    1. Gladman DD;
    2. ACCLAIM Study Investigators,
    3. Sampalis JS,
    4. Illouz O,
    5. Guérette B
    . Responses to adalimumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis who have not adequately responded to prior therapy: effectiveness and safety results from an open-label study. J Rheumatol 2010;37:1898–906.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. 105.↵
    1. Genovese MC,
    2. Mease PJ,
    3. Thomson GT,
    4. Kivitz AJ,
    5. Perdok RJ,
    6. Weinberg MA,
    7. et al.
    Safety and efficacy of adalimumab in treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis who had failed disease modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. J Rheumatol 2007;34:1040–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  106. 106.↵
    1. Kavanaugh A,
    2. McInnes I,
    3. Mease P,
    4. Krueger GG,
    5. Gladman D,
    6. Gomez-Reino J,
    7. et al.
    Golimumab, a new human tumor necrosis factor alpha antibody, administered every four weeks as a subcutaneous injection in psoriatic arthritis: Twenty-four-week efficacy and safety results of a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Arthritis Rheum 2009;60:976–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.↵
    1. Kavanaugh A,
    2. Mease P
    . Treatment of psoriatic arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: longer-term outcomes including enthesitis and dactylitis with golimumab treatment in the longterm extension of a randomized, placebo-controlled study (GO-REVEAL). J Rheumatol Suppl. 2012 Jul;89:90–3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  108. 108.↵
    1. Mease PJ,
    2. Fleischmann R,
    3. Deodhar AA,
    4. Wollenhaupt J,
    5. Khraishi M,
    6. Kielar D,
    7. et al.
    Effect of certolizumab pegol on signs and symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results of a phase 3 double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study (RAPID-PsA). Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:48–55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  109. 109.↵
    1. Ritchlin CT,
    2. Kavanaugh A,
    3. Gladman DD,
    4. Mease PJ,
    5. Helliwell P,
    6. Boehncke WH,
    7. et al.
    Treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1387–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  110. 110.↵
    1. Health Canada
    . [Internet. Accessed January 16, 2015.] Available from: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/index-eng.php
  111. 111.↵
    1. Breban M,
    2. Ravaud P,
    3. Claudepierre P,
    4. Baron G,
    5. Henry YD,
    6. Hudry C,
    7. et al.
    Maintenance of infliximab treatment in ankylosing spondylitis: results of a one-year randomized controlled trial comparing systematic versus on-demand treatment. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58:88–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. 112.↵
    1. Li EK,
    2. Griffith JF,
    3. Lee VW,
    4. Wang YX,
    5. Li TK,
    6. Lee KK,
    7. et al.
    Short-term efficacy of combination methotrexate and infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a clinical and magnetic resonance imaging correlation. Rheumatology 2008;47:1358–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  113. 113.↵
    1. Marzo-Ortega H,
    2. McGonagle D,
    3. Jarrett S,
    4. Haugeberg G,
    5. Hensor E,
    6. O’Connor P,
    7. et al.
    Infliximab in combination with methotrexate in active ankylosing spondylitis: a clinical and imaging study. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1568–75.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  114. 114.↵
    1. Ternant D,
    2. Mulleman D,
    3. Lauferon F,
    4. Vignault C,
    5. Ducourau E,
    6. Wendling D,
    7. et al.
    Influence of methotrexate on infliximab pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in ankylosing spondylitis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2012;73:55–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. 115.↵
    1. Mulleman D,
    2. Lauferon F,
    3. Wendling D,
    4. Ternant D,
    5. Ducourau E,
    6. Paintaud G,
    7. et al.
    Infliximab in ankylosing spondylitis: alone or in combination with methotrexate? A pharmacokinetic comparative study. Arthritis Res Ther 2011;13:R82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  116. 116.↵
    1. Mease PJ,
    2. Kivitz AJ,
    3. Burch FX,
    4. Siegel EL,
    5. Cohen SB,
    6. Ory P,
    7. et al.
    Etanercept treatment of psoriatic arthritis: safety, efficacy, and effect on disease progression. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:2264–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. 117.↵
    1. Gladman DD,
    2. Mease PJ,
    3. Ritchlin CT,
    4. Choy EH,
    5. Sharp JT,
    6. Ory PA,
    7. et al.
    Adalimumab for longterm treatment of psoriatic arthritis: forty-eight week data from the adalimumab effectiveness in psoriatic arthritis trial. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56:476–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. 118.↵
    1. Mease PJ,
    2. Gladman DD,
    3. Ritchlin CT,
    4. Ruderman EM,
    5. Steinfeld SD,
    6. Choy EH,
    7. et al.
    Adalimumab for the treatment of patients with moderately to severely active psoriatic arthritis: results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3279–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. 119.↵
    1. Heiberg MS,
    2. Koldingsnes W,
    3. Mikkelsen K,
    4. Rodevand E,
    5. Kaufmann C,
    6. Mowinckel P,
    7. et al.
    The comparative one-year performance of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: results from a longitudinal, observational, multicenter study. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:234–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    1. Kristensen LE,
    2. Gülfe A,
    3. Saxne T,
    4. Geborek P
    . Efficacy and tolerability of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy in psoriatic arthritis patients: results from the South Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group register. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:364–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  121. 121.↵
    1. Glintborg B,
    2. Østergaard M,
    3. Krogh NS,
    4. Tarp U,
    5. Manilo N,
    6. Loft AG,
    7. et al.
    Clinical response, drug survival and predictors thereof in 432 ankylosing spondylitis patients after switching tumour necrosis factor α inhibitor therapy: results from the Danish nationwide DANBIO registry. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1149–55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  122. 122.↵
    1. Lie E,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Uhlig T,
    4. Mikkelsen K,
    5. Rodevand E,
    6. Koldingsnes W,
    7. et al.
    Effectiveness of switching between TNF inhibitors in ankylosing spondylitis: data from the NOR-DMARD register. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:157–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  123. 123.↵
    1. Coates LC,
    2. Cawkwell LS,
    3. Ng NW,
    4. Bennett AN,
    5. Bryer DJ,
    6. Fraser AD,
    7. et al.
    Real life experience confirms sustained response to longterm biologics and switching in ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology 2008;47:897–900.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  124. 124.↵
    1. Dadoun S,
    2. Geri G,
    3. Paternotte S,
    4. Dougados M,
    5. Gossec L
    . Switching between tumour necrosis factor blockers in spondyloarthritis: a retrospective monocentre study of 222 patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2011;29:1010–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  125. 125.↵
    1. Spadaro A,
    2. Lubrano E,
    3. Marchesoni A,
    4. D’Angelo S,
    5. Ramonda R,
    6. Addimanda O,
    7. et al.
    Remission in ankylosing spondylitis treated with anti-TNF-α drugs: a national multicentre study. Rheumatology 2013;52:1914–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  126. 126.↵
    1. Cantini F,
    2. Niccoli L,
    3. Benucci M,
    4. Chindamo D,
    5. Nannini C,
    6. Olivieri I,
    7. et al.
    Switching from infliximab to once-weekly administration of 50 mg etanercept in resistant or intolerant patients with ankylosing spondylitis: results of a fifty-four-week study. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:812–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. 127.↵
    1. Glintborg B,
    2. Østergaard M,
    3. Krogh NS,
    4. Andersen MD,
    5. Tarp U,
    6. Loft AG,
    7. et al.
    Clinical response, drug survival, and predictors thereof among 548 patients with psoriatic arthritis who switched tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor therapy: results from the Danish Nationwide DANBIO Registry. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:1213–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. 128.↵
    1. Saad AA,
    2. Ashcroft DM,
    3. Watson KD,
    4. Hyrich KL,
    5. Noyce PR,
    6. Symmons DP,
    7. et al.
    Persistence with anti-tumour necrosis factor therapies in patients with psoriatic arthritis: observational study from the British Society of Rheumatology Biologics Register. Arthritis Res Ther 2009;11:R52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. 129.↵
    1. Fagerli KM,
    2. Lie E,
    3. van der Heijde D,
    4. Heiberg MS,
    5. Kalstad S,
    6. Rodevand E,
    7. et al.
    Switching between TNF inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis: data from the NOR-DMARD study. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1840–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  130. 130.↵
    1. Paccou J,
    2. Solau-Gervais E,
    3. Houvenagel E,
    4. Salleron J,
    5. Luraschi H,
    6. Philippe P,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy in current practice of switching between anti-tumour necrosis factor-α agents in spondyloarthropathies. Rheumatology 2011;50:714–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  131. 131.↵
    1. Gomez-Reino JJ,
    2. Carmona L;
    3. BIOBADASER Group
    . Switching TNF antagonists in patients with chronic arthritis: an observational study of 488 patients over a four-year period. Arthritis Res Ther 2006;8:R29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. 132.↵
    1. Song IH,
    2. Heldmann F,
    3. Rudwaleit M,
    4. Listing J,
    5. Appel H,
    6. Braun J,
    7. et al.
    Different response to rituximab in tumor necrosis factor blocker-naive patients with active ankylosing spondylitis and in patients in whom tumor necrosis factor blockers have failed: a twenty-four-week clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:1290–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. 133.↵
    1. Wendling D,
    2. Dougados M,
    3. Berenbaum F,
    4. Brocq O,
    5. Schaeverbeke T,
    6. Mazieres B,
    7. et al.
    Rituximab treatment for spondyloarthritis. A nationwide series: data from the AIR registry of the French Society of Rheumatology. J Rheumatol 2012;39:2327–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  134. 134.↵
    1. McInnes IB,
    2. Kavanaugh A,
    3. Gottlieb AB,
    4. Puig L,
    5. Rahman P,
    6. Ritchlin C,
    7. et al;
    8. PSUMMIT 1 Study Group
    . Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 1 year results of the phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled PSUMMIT 1 trial. Lancet 2013;382:780–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. 135.↵
    1. Kavanaugh A,
    2. Menter A,
    3. Mendelsohn A,
    4. Shen YK,
    5. Lee S,
    6. Gottlieb AB
    . Effect of ustekinumab on physical function and health-related quality of life in patients with psoriatic arthritis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II trial. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26:2385–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  136. 136.↵
    1. Kavanaugh A,
    2. Ritchlin C,
    3. Rahman P,
    4. Puig L,
    5. Gottlieb AB,
    6. Li S,
    7. et al;
    8. PSUMMIT-1 and 2 Study Groups
    . Ustekinumab, an anti-IL-12/23 p40 monoclonal antibody, inhibits radiographic progression in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: results of an integrated analysis of radiographic data from the phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled PSUMMIT-1 and PSUMMIT-2 trials. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:1000–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  137. 137.↵
    1. Song IH,
    2. Heldmann F,
    3. Rudwaleit M,
    4. Haibel H,
    5. Weiss A,
    6. Braun J,
    7. et al.
    Treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis with abatacept: an open-label, 24-week pilot study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1108–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  138. 138.↵
    1. Lekpa FK,
    2. Farrenq V,
    3. Canoui-Poitrine F,
    4. Paul M,
    5. Chevalier X,
    6. Bruckert R,
    7. et al.
    Lack of efficacy of abatacept in axial spondylarthropathies refractory to tumor-necrosis-factor inhibition. Joint Bone Spine 2012;79:47–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  139. 139.↵
    1. Mease P,
    2. Genovese MC,
    3. Gladstein G,
    4. Kivitz AJ,
    5. Ritchlin C,
    6. Tak PP,
    7. et al.
    Abatacept in the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis: Results of a six-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:939–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  140. 140.↵
    1. Sieper J,
    2. Porter-Brown B,
    3. Thompson L,
    4. Harari O,
    5. Dougados M
    . Assessment of short-term symptomatic efficacy of tocilizumab in ankylosing spondylitis: results of randomised, placebo-controlled trials. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:95–100.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  141. 141.↵
    1. Cohen JD,
    2. Ferreira R,
    3. Jorgensen C
    . Ankylosing spondylitis refractory to tumor necrosis factor blockade responds to tocilizumab. J Rheumatol 2011;38:1527.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  142. 142.↵
    1. Henes JC,
    2. Horger M,
    3. Guenaydin I,
    4. Kanz L,
    5. Koetter I
    . Mixed response to tocilizumab for ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:2217–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  143. 143.↵
    1. Hughes M,
    2. Chinoy H
    . Successful use of tocilizumab in a patient with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology 2013;52:1728–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  144. 144.↵
    1. Ogata A,
    2. Umegaki N,
    3. Katayama I,
    4. Kumanogoh A,
    5. Tanaka T
    . Psoriatic arthritis in two patients with an inadequate response to treatment with tocilizumab. Joint Bone Spine 2012;79:85–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  145. 145.↵
    1. Tanaka T,
    2. Kuwahara Y,
    3. Shima Y,
    4. Hirano T,
    5. Kawai M,
    6. Ogawa M,
    7. et al.
    Successful treatment of reactive arthritis with a humanized anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody, tocilizumab. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:1762–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  146. 146.↵
    1. Tan AL,
    2. Marzo-Ortega H,
    3. O’Connor P,
    4. Fraser A,
    5. Emery P,
    6. McGonagle D
    . Efficacy of anakinra in active ankylosing spondylitis: a clinical and magnetic resonance imaging study. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:1041–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  147. 147.↵
    1. Bennett AN,
    2. Tan AL,
    3. Coates LC,
    4. Emery P,
    5. Marzo-Ortega H,
    6. McGonagle D
    . Sustained response to anakinra in ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology 2008;47:223–4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  148. 148.↵
    1. Haibel H,
    2. Rudwaleit M,
    3. Listing J,
    4. Sieper J
    . Open label trial of anakinra in active ankylosing spondylitis over 24 weeks. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:296–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  149. 149.↵
    1. Vander Cruyssen B,
    2. Muñoz-Gomariz E,
    3. Font P,
    4. Mulero J,
    5. de Vlam K,
    6. Boonen A,
    7. et al.
    Hip involvement in ankylosing spondylitis: epidemiology and risk factors associated with hip replacement surgery. Rheumatology 2010;49:73–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  150. 150.↵
    1. Burki V,
    2. Gossec L,
    3. Payet J,
    4. Durnez A,
    5. Elhai M,
    6. Fabreguet I,
    7. et al.
    Prevalence and characteristics of hip involvement in spondyloarthritis: a single-centre observational study of 275 patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2012;30:481–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  151. 151.↵
    1. Tang WM,
    2. Chiu KY
    . Primary total hip arthroplasty in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Arthroplasty 2000;15:52–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  152. 152.↵
    1. Sweeney S,
    2. Gupta R,
    3. Taylor G,
    4. Calin A
    . Total hip arthroplasty in ankylosing spondylitis: outcome in 340 patients. J Rheumatol 2001;28:1862–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  153. 153.↵
    1. Bhan S,
    2. Eachempati KK,
    3. Malhotra R
    . Primary cementless total hip arthroplasty for bony ankylosis in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:859–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  154. 154.↵
    1. Joshi AB,
    2. Markovic L,
    3. Hardinge K,
    4. Murphy JC
    . Total hip arthroplasty in ankylosing spondylitis: an analysis of 181 hips. J Arthroplasty 2002;17:427–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  155. 155.↵
    1. Lehtimaki MY,
    2. Lehto MU,
    3. Kautiainen H,
    4. Lehtinen K,
    5. Hamalainen MM
    . Charnley total hip arthroplasty in ankylosing spondylitis: survivorship analysis of 76 patients followed for 8–28 years. Acta Orthop Scand 2001;72:233–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  156. 156.↵
    1. Sochart DH,
    2. Porter ML
    . Longterm results of total hip replacement in young patients who had ankylosing spondylitis. Eighteen to thirty-year results with survivorship analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79:1181–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  157. 157.↵
    1. Brinker MR,
    2. Rosenberg AG,
    3. Kull L,
    4. Cox DD
    . Primary noncemented total hip arthroplasty in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Clinical and radiographic results at an average followup period of 6 years. J Arthroplasty 1996;11:802–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  158. 158.↵
    1. Shih LY,
    2. Chen TH,
    3. Lo WH,
    4. Yang DJ
    . Total hip arthroplasty in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: longterm followup. J Rheumatol 1995;22:1704–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  159. 159.↵
    1. Walker LG,
    2. Sledge CB
    . Total hip arthroplasty in ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991:198–204.
  160. 160.↵
    1. Kilgus DJ,
    2. Namba RS,
    3. Gorek JE,
    4. Cracchiolo A 3rd,
    5. Amstutz HC
    . Total hip replacement for patients who have ankylosing spondylitis. The importance of the formation of heterotopic bone and of the durability of fixation of cemented components. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72:834–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  161. 161.↵
    1. Calin A,
    2. Elswood J
    . The outcome of 138 total hip replacements and 12 revisions in ankylosing spondylitis: high success rate after a mean followup of 7.5 years. J Rheumatol 1989;16:955–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  162. 162.↵
    1. Sundaram NA,
    2. Murphy JC
    . Heterotopic bone formation following total hip arthroplasty in ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986:223–6.
  163. 163.↵
    1. Wang Y,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Mao K,
    4. Zhang X,
    5. Wang Z,
    6. Zheng G,
    7. et al.
    Transpedicular bivertebrae wedge osteotomy and discectomy in lumbar spine for severe ankylosing spondylitis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010;23:186–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  164. 164.↵
    1. Belanger TA,
    2. Milam RA 4th,
    3. Roh JS,
    4. Bohlman HH
    . Cervicothoracic extension osteotomy for chin-on-chest deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1732–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  165. 165.↵
    1. Chang KW,
    2. Chen HC,
    3. Chen YY,
    4. Lin CC,
    5. Hsu HL,
    6. Cai YH
    . Sagittal translation in opening wedge osteotomy for the correction of thoracolumbar kyphotic deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. Spine 2006;31:1137–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  166. 166.↵
    1. Kim KT,
    2. Suk KS,
    3. Cho YJ,
    4. Hong GP,
    5. Park BJ
    . Clinical outcome results of pedicle subtraction osteotomy in ankylosing spondylitis with kyphotic deformity. Spine 2002;27:612–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  167. 167.↵
    1. Simmons ED,
    2. DiStefano RJ,
    3. Zheng Y,
    4. Simmons EH
    . Thirty-six years experience of cervical extension osteotomy in ankylosing spondylitis: techniques and outcomes. Spine 2006;31:3006–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  168. 168.↵
    1. Qian BP,
    2. Wang XH,
    3. Qiu Y,
    4. Wang B,
    5. Zhu ZZ,
    6. Jiang J,
    7. et al.
    The influence of closing-opening wedge osteotomy on sagittal balance in thoracolumbar kyphosis secondary to ankylosing spondylitis: a comparison with closing wedge osteotomy. Spine 2012;37:1415–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  169. 169.↵
    1. Brox JI,
    2. Helle A,
    3. Sorensen R,
    4. Gunderson R,
    5. Riise R,
    6. Reikeras O
    . Functional outcome after lumbar closing wedge osteotomy in ankylosing spondylitis. Int Orthop 2009;33:1049–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  170. 170.↵
    1. Weale AE,
    2. Marsh CH,
    3. Yeoman PM
    . Secure fixation of lumbar osteotomy. Surgical experience with 50 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995:216–22.
  171. 171.↵
    1. van Royen BJ,
    2. Slot GH
    . Closing-wedge posterior osteotomy for ankylosing spondylitis. Partial corporectomy and transpedicular fixation in 22 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995;77:117–21.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  172. 172.↵
    1. Hehne HJ,
    2. Zielke K,
    3. Bohm H
    . Polysegmental lumbar osteotomies and transpedicled fixation for correction of long-curved kyphotic deformities in ankylosing spondylitis. Report on 177 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990:49–55.
  173. 173.↵
    1. Min K,
    2. Hahn F,
    3. Leonardi M
    . Lumbar spinal osteotomy for kyphosis in ankylosing spondylitis: the significance of the whole body kyphosis angle. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007;20:149–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  174. 174.↵
    1. Chang KW,
    2. Chen YY,
    3. Lin CC,
    4. Hsu HL,
    5. Pai KC
    . Closing wedge osteotomy versus opening wedge osteotomy in ankylosing spondylitis with thoracolumbar kyphotic deformity. Spine 2005;30:1584–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  175. 175.↵
    1. Kim KT,
    2. Lee SH,
    3. Suk KS,
    4. Lee JH,
    5. Im YJ
    . Spinal pseudarthrosis in advanced ankylosing spondylitis with sagittal plane deformity: clinical characteristics and outcome analysis. Spine 2007;32:1641–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  176. 176.↵
    1. Chang KW,
    2. Tu MY,
    3. Huang HH,
    4. Chen HC,
    5. Chen YY,
    6. Lin CC
    . Posterior correction and fixation without anterior fusion for pseudoarthrosis with kyphotic deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. Spine 2006;31:E408–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  177. 177.↵
    1. Tse SM,
    2. Burgos-Vargas R,
    3. Colbert RA
    . Juvenile spondyloarthritis treatment recommendations. Am J Med Sci 2012;343:367–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  178. 178.↵
    1. van Brussel M,
    2. Lelieveld OT,
    3. van der Net J,
    4. Engelbert RH,
    5. Helders PJ,
    6. Takken T
    . Aerobic and anaerobic exercise capacity in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:891–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  179. 179.↵
    1. Lelieveld OT,
    2. van Brussel M,
    3. Takken T,
    4. van Weert E,
    5. van Leeuwen MA,
    6. Armbrust W
    . Aerobic and anaerobic exercise capacity in adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:898–904.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  180. 180.↵
    1. Takken T,
    2. Van Brussel M,
    3. Engelbert RH,
    4. Van Der Net J,
    5. Kuis W,
    6. Helders PJ
    . Exercise therapy in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a Cochrane review. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2008;44:287–97.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  181. 181.↵
    1. Tarakci E,
    2. Yeldan I,
    3. Baydogan SN,
    4. Olgar S,
    5. Kasapcopur O
    . Efficacy of a land-based home exercise programme for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a randomized, controlled, single-blind study. J Rehabil Med 2012;44:962–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  182. 182.↵
    1. Singh-Grewal D,
    2. Schneiderman-Walker J,
    3. Wright V,
    4. Bar-Or O,
    5. Beyene J,
    6. Selvadurai H,
    7. et al.
    The effects of vigorous exercise training on physical function in children with arthritis: a randomized, controlled, single-blinded trial. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:1202–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  183. 183.↵
    1. Powell M,
    2. Seid M,
    3. Szer IS
    . Efficacy of custom foot orthotics in improving pain and functional status in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a randomized trial. J Rheumatol 2005;32:943–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  184. 184.↵
    1. Fischer T,
    2. Biedermann T,
    3. Hermann KG,
    4. Diekmann F,
    5. Braun J,
    6. Hamm B,
    7. et al.
    [Sacroiliitis in children with spondyloarthropathy: therapeutic effect of CT-guided intra-articular corticosteroid injection]. [Article in German] Rofo 2003;175:814–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  185. 185.↵
    1. Papadopoulou C,
    2. Kostik M,
    3. Gonzalez-Fernandez MI,
    4. Bohm M,
    5. Nieto-Gonzalez JC,
    6. Pistorio A,
    7. et al.
    Delineating the role of multiple intraarticular corticosteroid injections in the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the biologic era. Arthritis Care Res 2013;65:1112–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  186. 186.↵
    1. Young CM,
    2. Shiels WE 2nd,
    3. Coley BD,
    4. Hogan MJ,
    5. Murakami JW,
    6. Jones K,
    7. et al.
    Ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection therapy for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: 12-year care experience. Pediatr Radiol 2012;42:1481–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  187. 187.↵
    1. Habibi S,
    2. Ellis J,
    3. Strike H,
    4. Ramanan AV
    . Safety and efficacy of US-guided CS injection into temporomandibular joints in children with active JIA. Rheumatology 2012;51:874–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  188. 188.↵
    1. Ringold S,
    2. Torgerson TR,
    3. Egbert MA,
    4. Wallace CA
    . Intraarticular corticosteroid injections of the temporomandibular joint in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J Rheumatol 2008;35:1157–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  189. 189.↵
    1. Cahill AM,
    2. Cho SS,
    3. Baskin KM,
    4. Beukelman T,
    5. Cron RQ,
    6. Kaye RD,
    7. et al.
    Benefit of fluoroscopically guided intraarticular, long-acting corticosteroid injection for subtalar arthritis in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Pediatr Radiol 2007;37:544–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  190. 190.↵
    1. Ravelli A,
    2. Manzoni SM,
    3. Viola S,
    4. Pistorio A,
    5. Ruperto N,
    6. Martini A
    . Factors affecting the efficacy of intraarticular corticosteroid injection of knees in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J Rheumatol 2001;28:2100–2.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  191. 191.↵
    1. Burgos-Vargas R,
    2. Vázquez-Mellado J,
    3. Pacheco-Tena C,
    4. Hernández-Garduño A,
    5. Goycochea-Robles MV
    . A 26 week randomised, double blind, placebo controlled exploratory study of sulfasalazine in juvenile onset spondyloarthropathies. Ann Rheum Dis 2002;61:941–2.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  192. 192.↵
    1. van Rossum MA,
    2. Fiselier TJ,
    3. Franssen MJ,
    4. Zwinderman AH,
    5. ten Cate R,
    6. van Suijlekom-Smit LW,
    7. et al.
    Sulfasalazine in the treatment of juvenile chronic arthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. Dutch Juvenile Chronic Arthritis Study Group. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:808–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  193. 193.↵
    1. van Rossum MA,
    2. van Soesbergen RM,
    3. Boers M,
    4. Zwinderman AH,
    5. Fiselier TJ,
    6. Franssen MJ,
    7. et al.
    Longterm outcome of juvenile idiopathic arthritis following a placebo-controlled trial: sustained benefits of early sulfasalazine treatment. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:1518–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  194. 194.↵
    1. Huang JL,
    2. Chen LC
    . Sulphasalazine in the treatment of children with chronic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 1998;17:359–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  195. 195.↵
    1. Imundo LF,
    2. Jacobs JC
    . Sulfasalazine therapy for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1996;23:360–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  196. 196.↵
    1. Job-Deslandre C,
    2. Menkes CJ
    . [Treatment of juvenile spondyloarthropathies with sulfasalazine]. [Article in French] Rev Rhum Ed Fr 1993;60:489–91.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  197. 197.↵
    1. Suschke HJ
    . [Treatment of juvenile spondylarthritis and reactive arthritis with sulfasalazine]. [Article in German] Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 1992;140:658–60.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  198. 198.↵
    1. Chen CC,
    2. Lin YT,
    3. Yang YH,
    4. Chiang BL
    . Sulfasalazine therapy for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. J Formos Med Assoc 2002;101:110–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  199. 199.↵
    1. Brooks CD
    . Sulfasalazine for the management of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2001;28:845–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  200. 200.↵
    1. Varbanova BB,
    2. Dyankov ED
    . Sulphasalazine. An alternative drug for second-line treatment of juvenile chronic arthritis. Adv Exp Med Biol 1999;455:331–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  201. 201.↵
    1. Gedalia A,
    2. Barash J,
    3. Press J,
    4. Buskila D
    . Sulphasalazine in the treatment of pauciarticular-onset juvenile chronic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 1993;12:511–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  202. 202.↵
    1. Hoza J,
    2. Kadlecová T,
    3. Nĕmcová D,
    4. Havelka S
    . Sulphasalazine and Delagil—a comparative study in patients with juvenile chronic arthritis. Acta Univ Carol Med 1991;37:80–3.
    OpenUrl
  203. 203.↵
    1. Joos R,
    2. Veys EM,
    3. Mielants H,
    4. van Werveke S,
    5. Goemaere S
    . Sulfasalazine treatment in juvenile chronic arthritis: An open study. J Rheumatol 1991;18:880–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  204. 204.↵
    1. Ansell BM,
    2. Hall MA,
    3. Loftus JK,
    4. Woo P,
    5. Neumann V,
    6. Harvey A,
    7. et al.
    A multicentre pilot study of sulphasalazine in juvenile chronic arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1991;9:201–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  205. 205.↵
    1. Ozdogan H,
    2. Turunc M,
    3. Deringol B,
    4. Yurdakul S,
    5. Yazici H
    . Sulphasalazine in the treatment of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis: a preliminary open trial. J Rheumatol 1986;13:124–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  206. 206.↵
    1. Giannini EH,
    2. Brewer EJ,
    3. Kuzmina N,
    4. Shaikov A,
    5. Maximov A,
    6. Vorontsov I,
    7. et al.
    Methotrexate in resistant juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Results of the U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group and The Cooperative Children’s Study Group. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1043–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  207. 207.↵
    1. Ruperto N,
    2. Murray KJ,
    3. Gerloni V,
    4. Wulffraat N,
    5. de Oliveira SK,
    6. Falcini F,
    7. et al.
    A randomized trial of parenteral methotrexate comparing an intermediate dose with a higher dose in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis who failed to respond to standard doses of methotrexate. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:2191–201.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  208. 208.↵
    1. Woo P,
    2. Southwood TR,
    3. Prieur AM,
    4. Dore CJ,
    5. Grainger J,
    6. David J,
    7. et al.
    Randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of low-dose oral methotrexate in children with extended oligoarticular or systemic arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:1849–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  209. 209.↵
    1. Klein A,
    2. Kaul I,
    3. Foeldvari I,
    4. Ganser G,
    5. Urban A,
    6. Horneff G
    . Efficacy and safety of oral and parenteral methotrexate therapy in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: an observational study with patients from the German Methotrexate Registry. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:1349–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  210. 210.↵
    1. Céspedes-Cruz A,
    2. Gutiérrez-Suárez R,
    3. Pistorio A,
    4. Ravelli A,
    5. Loy A,
    6. Murray KJ,
    7. et al.
    Methotrexate improves the health-related quality of life of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:309–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  211. 211.↵
    1. Brik R,
    2. Gepstein V,
    3. Berkovitz D
    . Low-dose methotrexate treatment for oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis nonresponsive to intra-articular corticosteroids. Clin Rheumatol 2005;24:612–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  212. 212.↵
    1. Reiff A,
    2. Shaham B,
    3. Wood BP,
    4. Bernstein BH,
    5. Stanley P,
    6. Szer IS
    . High dose methotrexate in the treatment of refractory juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1995;13:113–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  213. 213.↵
    1. Halle F,
    2. Prieur AM
    . Evaluation of methotrexate in the treatment of juvenile chronic arthritis according to the subtype. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1991;9:297–302.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  214. 214.↵
    1. Silverman E,
    2. Mouy R,
    3. Spiegel L,
    4. Jung LK,
    5. Saurenmann RK,
    6. Lahdenne P,
    7. et al.
    Leflunomide or methotrexate for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1655–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  215. 215.↵
    1. Silverman E,
    2. Spiegel L,
    3. Hawkins D,
    4. Petty R,
    5. Goldsmith D,
    6. Schanberg L,
    7. et al.
    Longterm open-label preliminary study of the safety and efficacy of leflunomide in patients with polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:554–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  216. 216.↵
    1. Burgos-Vargas R,
    2. Gutierrez-Suarez C
    . Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of infliximab in juvenile-onset spondyloarthropathies (JO-SpA): results of a three-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial phase. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56:S319.
    OpenUrl
  217. 217.↵
    1. Tse SM,
    2. Burgos-Vargas R,
    3. Laxer RM
    . Anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha blockade in the treatment of juvenile spondylarthropathy. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:2103–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  218. 218.↵
    1. Sulpice M,
    2. Deslandre CJ,
    3. Quartier P
    . Efficacy and safety of TNFalpha antagonist therapy in patients with juvenile spondyloarthropathies. Joint Bone Spine 2009;76:24–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  219. 219.↵
    1. Otten MH,
    2. Prince FH,
    3. Twilt M,
    4. Ten Cate R,
    5. Armbrust W,
    6. Hoppenreijs EP,
    7. et al.
    Tumor necrosis factor-blocking agents for children with enthesitis-related arthritis—data from the Dutch arthritis and biologicals in children register, 1999–2010. J Rheumatol 2011;38:2258–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  220. 220.↵
    1. Henrickson M,
    2. Reiff A
    . Prolonged efficacy of etanercept in refractory enthesitis-related arthritis. J Rheumatol 2004;31:2055–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  221. 221.↵
    1. Burgos-Vargas R
    . A case of childhood-onset ankylosing spondylitis: diagnosis and treatment. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2009;5:52–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  222. 222.↵
    1. Schmeling H,
    2. Horneff G
    . Infliximab in two patients with juvenile ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatol Int 2004;24:173–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  223. 223.↵
    1. Tse SM,
    2. Laxer RM,
    3. Babyn PS,
    4. Doria AS
    . Radiologic improvement of juvenile idiopathic arthritis-enthesitis-related arthritis following anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha blockade with etanercept. J Rheumatol 2006;33:1186–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  224. 224.↵
    1. Burgos-Vargas R,
    2. Tse SM,
    3. Horneff G,
    4. Pangan AL,
    5. Unnebrink K,
    6. Anderson JK
    . A3: efficacy and safety of adalimumab in pediatric patients with enthesitis related arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014;66 Suppl 11:S4.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

 Request Permissions

Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords

SPONDYLOARTHRITIS
ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS
PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Keywords