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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- 4.↵
- 5.↵
- 6.↵
- 7.↵
- 8.↵
- 9.↵
- 10.↵
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.↵
- 14.↵
- 15.↵
- 16.↵
- 17.↵
- 18.↵
- 19.↵
- 20.↵
- 21.↵
- 22.↵
- 23.↵
- 24.↵
- 25.↵
- 26.↵
- 27.↵
- 28.↵
- 29.↵
- 30.↵
- 31.↵
- 32.↵
- 33.↵
- 34.↵
- 35.↵
- 36.↵
- 37.↵
- 38.↵
- 39.↵
- 40.↵
- 41.↵
- 42.↵
- 43.↵
- 44.↵
- 45.↵
- 46.↵
- 47.↵
- 48.↵
- 49.↵
- 50.↵
- 51.↵
- 52.↵
- 53.↵
- 54.↵
- 55.↵
- 56.↵
- 57.↵
- 58.↵
- 59.↵
- 60.↵
- 61.↵
- 62.↵
- 63.↵
- 64.↵
- 65.↵
- 66.↵
- 67.↵
- 68.↵
- 69.↵
- 70.↵
- 71.↵
- 72.↵
- 73.↵
- 74.↵
- 75.↵
- 76.↵
- 77.↵
- 78.↵
- 79.↵
- 80.↵
- 81.↵
- 82.↵
- 83.↵
- 84.↵
- 85.↵
- 86.↵
- 87.↵
- 88.↵
- 89.↵
- 90.↵
- 91.↵
- 92.↵
- 93.↵
- 94.↵
- 95.↵
- 96.↵
- 97.↵
- 98.↵
- 99.↵
- 100.↵
- 101.↵
- 102.↵
- 103.↵
- 104.↵
- 105.↵
- 106.↵
- 107.↵
- 108.↵
- 109.↵
- 110.↵
- 111.↵
- 112.↵
- 113.↵
- 114.↵
- 115.↵
- 116.↵
- 117.↵
- 118.↵
- 119.↵
- 120.↵
- 121.↵
- 122.↵
- 123.↵
- 124.↵
- 125.↵
- 126.↵
- 127.↵
- 128.↵
- 129.↵
- 130.↵
- 131.↵
- 132.↵
- 133.↵
- 134.↵
- 135.↵
- 136.↵
- 137.↵
- 138.↵
- 139.↵
- 140.↵
- 141.↵
- 142.↵
- 143.↵
- 144.↵
- 145.↵
- 146.↵
- 147.↵
- 148.↵
- 149.↵
- 150.↵
- 151.↵
- 152.↵
- 153.↵
- 154.↵
- 155.↵
- 156.↵
- 157.↵
- 158.↵
- 159.↵
- 160.↵
- 161.↵
- 162.↵
- 163.↵
- 164.↵
- 165.↵
- 166.↵
- 167.↵
- 168.↵
- 169.↵
- 170.↵
- 171.↵
- 172.↵
- 173.↵
- 174.↵
- 175.↵
- 176.↵
- 177.↵
- 178.↵
- 179.↵
- 180.↵
- 181.↵
- 182.↵
- 183.↵
- 184.↵
- 185.↵
- 186.↵
- 187.↵
- 188.↵
- 189.↵
- 190.↵
- 191.↵
- 192.↵
- 193.↵
- 194.↵
- 195.↵
- 196.↵
- 197.↵
- 198.↵
- 199.↵
- 200.↵
- 201.↵
- 202.↵
- 203.↵
- 204.↵
- 205.↵
- 206.↵
- 207.↵
- 208.↵
- 209.↵
- 210.↵
- 211.↵
- 212.↵
- 213.↵
- 214.↵
- 215.↵
- 216.↵
- 217.↵
- 218.↵
- 219.↵
- 220.↵
- 221.↵
- 222.↵
- 223.↵
- 224.↵