Assessment Of SpondyloArthritis International Society Research Articles

Prevalence of Inflammatory Back Pain and Axial Spondyloarthritis Among University Employees in Izmir, Turkey.

To estimate the prevalence of inflammatory back pain (IBP) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) using the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria among employees in a university. In the first stage of the study, a face-to-face interview was done using a standard questionnaire to investigate IBP in 381 subjects randomly selected from 2894 employees at Dokuz Eylul University in Izmir, Turkey. In the second stage, subjects with back pain for ≥ 3 months and age at onset < 45 years were evaluated for axSpA using the ASAS criteria. Both the European Spondyloarthropathy Study Group (ESSG) criteria and Amor criteria were used for the classification of the whole group of spondyloarthritis (SpA). There were 131 male and 250 female subjects (mean age: 38.0 yrs). Twenty-five subjects (6.6%) were classified as having IBP according to the ASAS criteria. The prevalence of IBP according to the Berlin and Calin criteria was 7.1% and 21.5%, respectively. The prevalence of axSpA was estimated at 1.3% according to the ASAS classification criteria (0.5% for radiographic axSpA and 0.8% for nonradiographic axSpA). A total of 7 patients (1.8%) fulfilled both the Amor and ESSG criteria for the whole group of SpA. This is the first prevalence study of IBP and axSpA using ASAS classification criteria in the Turkish population. The prevalence estimates of IBP and axSpA reported here are within the upper range of other studies in European countries and the United States.

Diagnosis and Management of Late-Onset Spondyloarthritis: Implications of Treat-to-Target Recommendations.

Spondyloarthritis (SpA) is usually observed in young patients while onset in the elderly is less common. Late-onset forms of SpA may become more common due to longer life expectancy. The clinical spectrum of late-onset SpA is as broad as in young people, with a predominance of peripheral SpA over pure axial disease. The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) has developed new criteria for axial or peripheral SpA that allow patients aged under 45 years at the time of disease onset to be identified. These criteria are not theoretically adapted for the classification of patients with late-onset disease but they are useful for the diagnosis. Similarly, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now widely used for the early recognition of sacroiliitis or spinal inflammation in SpA, and sacroiliitis as evidenced by MRI is included in the ASAS criteria for axial SpA. Nevertheless, the utility of sacroiliac joint and/or spine inflammation as detected by MRI has mostly been described in young patients with ankylosing spondylitis, SpA, or inflammatory back pain, but not in the elderly. The management of SpA is now more focused on remission or, alternatively, low disease activity, according to the treat-to-target recommendations. Such an optimized approach to therapy is thought to improve patient outcomes and ultimately long-term quality of life. The same principles of treatment should apply in the elderly, but require certain adjustments, especially with biological agents. Tumor necrosis factor-α blocking agents are very effective in SpA, but seem slightly less effective in the elderly and are associated with an increased risk of infection in this population. A careful and rigorous evaluation is thus required before initiating these agents in elderly subjects.

Predictors of Clinical Remission under Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor Treatment in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: Pooled Analysis from Large Randomized Clinical Trials.

Investigate the role and relation of disease duration of different factors for achieving clinical remission with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) treatment in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data pooled from 4 large (n = 1281) clinical trials were used to compare disease duration subgroups for placebo or sulfasalazine (SSZ) versus etanercept (ETN), which, in turn, were analyzed by age of diagnosis ≤ 40 versus > 40 years, HLA-B27 status, and baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) ≤ upper limit of normal (ULN) versus > ULN using chi-square tests, and ANCOVA. The primary efficacy measure was Assessments of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) partial remission (PR) after 12 weeks of treatment. Also analyzed were Bath AS Disease Activity Index and Functional Index, AS Disease Activity Scores, and ASAS response rates. Overall, a larger percentage of patients achieved ASAS-PR with ETN versus SSZ or placebo. More patients with ≤ 2-year disease duration treated with ETN experienced partial remission (34%) versus longer disease duration (30%, 27%, and 22% for > 2-5, > 5-10, and > 10 yrs, respectively; all p < 0.05). In the subgroup of patients with both disease duration ≤ 2 years and aged ≤ 40 years at diagnosis, the treatment response was even more pronounced. Similar results were seen in HLA-B27-positive patients in the disease duration ≤ 2-year subgroup. Overall, patients with high CRP at baseline had better treatment responses compared with patients with normal CRP. Treatment response under anti-TNF treatment with ETN at 12 weeks was greatest among patients with disease duration ≤ 2 years and even more pronounced in subgroups of patients ≤ 40 years old or HLA-B27-positive at diagnosis.

Clinical Tools to Assess and Monitor Spondyloarthritis.

Assessment and monitoring is important in diseases affecting multiple sites and organs, such as axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) that may have several signs and symptoms, and for which several treatments are available. Instruments for assessment and monitoring should be appropriately validated, and it should be feasible to use them in clinical practice as well as in clinical trials. The Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) has developed core-sets of domains of disease and instruments to measure these domains, and recommends only the most important domains being measured with the best available methods. This article describes the ASAS core sets, as well as a few recent developments in the field of assessment, to be applied in clinical practice and research studies.

Metric Properties of the SPARCC Score of the Sacroiliac Joints - Data from Baseline, 3-month, and 12-month Followup in the SPACE Cohort.

To evaluate metric properties of the SpondyloArthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) score of the sacroiliac (SI) joints. Patients with back pain (≥ 3 months, ≤ 2 years, onset < 45 years) were included in the SPACE cohort (SpondyloArthritis Caught Early). Patients with (possible) axial spondyloarthritis had followup visits after 3 and 12 months and were treated according to clinical practice. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the SI joints (MRI-SI) was scored in 2 independent campaigns (campaign 1: at baseline and 3 months; campaign 2: at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months) by 2 different blinded reader pairs, applying the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) definition (MRI-SI+ vs MRI-SI-; discordant cases were adjudicated by a third reader) and SPARCC score (mean of 2 agreeing readers). Calculations were made for agreement between SPARCC score cutoff values and a consensus judgment of MRI-SI+ (ASAS definition) as external standard, change in SPARCC score, and smallest detectable changes (SDC) over 3 and 12 months. SPARCC score ≥ 2 showed best agreement with MRI-SI+ in both campaigns. Regarding observed changes in relation to SDC, SPARCC score changed in 70/151 patients; 26/70 patients changed > SDC (3.4), of whom 20 patients received stable treatment over 3 months in campaign 1. Over 3 months, 20/68 patients showed changes in SPARCC score; 11/20 > SDC (2.1), of whom 8 patients received stable treatment. Over 1 year, 23/74 patients changed their SPARCC score; 14/23 changed > SDC (2.4), of whom 7 received stable treatment in campaign 2. SPARCC score ≥ 2 can be used as surrogate for a consensus judgment of MRI-SI+ (ASAS definition) in clinical trials. The SDC ranged from 2.1-3.4 dependent on reader pair and were close to the proposed minimum important change of 2.5.

Looking into the new ASAS classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis through the other side of the glass.

The new concept of axial spondylitis (axSpA) and the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA have induced new clinical research that has broadened our understanding of spondyloarthritis (SpA) and has had indeed a positive impact on earlier diagnosis and treatment of patients with axSpA who have not yet developed radiographic sacroiliitis. The primary goal of any valid classification criteria for any disease is to provide a homogeneous study population with a common etiopathogenesis, similar prognosis, and similar response to identical treatment. Without such a homogeneous study population, robust clinical and basic science research in any subtype of SpA is not possible. All criteria are dynamic concepts that need updating as our knowledge advances and our review of the ASAS classification criteria of axSpA indicates that complex multi-selection design and unclear (not mutually exclusive) definitions of the imaging and clinical arms of the criteria results in patient heterogeneity across study populations. Therefore, there is a need to improve the validity of the ASAS criteria for axSpA. It is our opinion that in the meantime, the clinically well-established entity of AS, as defined by the modified New York (mNY) criteria, should be preserved for the most accurate comparison of the new research studies with those conducted over the last three decades, and that the use of the ASAS criteria should be restricted to patients with nr-axSpA, who are not recognized by the mNY criteria.

TNF-alpha inhibitors for ankylosing spondylitis.

TNF-alpha inhibitors for ankylosing spondylitis.

Diagnosis of spondyloarthritis: should we need new criteria?

A large number of classification criteria for spondyloarthritis (SpA) are simultaneously used in modern rheumatology in the almost complete absence of diagnostic criteria. This poses a number of problems, among which there are two most important ones: 1) the frequent use of classification criteria to make a diagnosis in real clinical practice; 2) the possibility of stating different nosological entities of SpA in one patient in the presence of the same clinical picture. Objective : to investigate the specific features of the diagnosis of SpA and the use of its classification criteria in clinical practice. Subjects and methods . The investigation enrolled 119 patients with the established diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), undifferentiated axial or peripheral SpA. Whether their clinical picture complied with the modified New York criteria, the European Spondyloarthropathy Study Group (ESSG) criteria, the Amor criteria, and the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axial and peripheral SpA and whether the Russian version of the modified New York criteria complied with the Classification criteria of Psoriatic ARthritis (CASPAR) were determined in the patients. Results . Sixty-three patients diagnosed with AS (M45), 44 with PsA (M07.0-07.3), 8 with undifferentiated SpA (M46.9), and 4 with nonradiographic axial SpA (M46.8) were followed up by attending physicians. The latter diagnosed AS in 10 patients who met the ASAS criteria for axial PsA but not the modified New York criteria. Twenty-one patients diagnosed as having PsA simultaneously met both the CASPAR criteria and the modified New York criteria, which could establish the diagnosis of AS in these cases. Eighty-one (68.0%) out of the 119 patients met the Amor criteria; 98 (82.3%) patients, the ESSG criteria; 91 (76.5%), the ASAS criteria for axial SpA; 18 (15.1%), the ASAS criteria for peripheral SpA; 76 (63.8%), the modified New York criteria; 88 (73.9%), the Russian version of the modified New York criteria; 42 (32.3%), the CASPAR criteria. No intersection of criteria was observed in only 5 patients; 113 (94.9%) patients met ≥2 criteria; 96 (80.7%), ≥3 criteria; 81 (68.1%), ≥4 criteria; 66 (55.5%), simultaneously ≥5 criteria; and 18 (15.1%), simultaneously 6 criteria. Conclusion . Most patients with SpA meet ≥2 classification criteria, which gives the chance to state ≥2 nosological entities in the same patient. This demonstrates the elaboration of diagnostic criteria that can make a clear distinction between different forms of SpA in clinical practice.

Validity of ankylosing spondylitis and undifferentiated spondyloarthritis diagnoses in the Swedish National Patient Register

Objectives: Epidemiological studies of spondyloarthritis (SpA), using ICD codes from the Swedish National Patient Register (NPR), offer unique possibilities but hinge upon an understanding of the validity of the codes. The aim of this study was to validate the ICD codes for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and undifferentiated SpA (uSpA) in the NPR against the established classification criteria [modified New York (mNY), Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS), Amor, and European Spondyloarthropathy Study Group (ESSG) criteria].Method: All patients with an ICD-8/9/10 code of AS or uSpA in the NPR 1966–2009 at a visit to a specialist in rheumatology or internal medicine or corresponding hospitalization, alive and living in Sweden 2009, were identified (n = 20 089). Following a structured procedure to achieve geographical representativeness, 500 random patients with a diagnosis of AS or uSpA in 2007–2009 were selected. Based on a structured review of clinical records, positive predictive values (PPVs) for fulfilling the criteria sets were calculated.Results: For those having received an ICD code for AS, the PPVs for fulfilling the mNY criteria or any set of SpA criteria were 70% and 89%, respectively. For those with an uSpA diagnosis (and never an AS diagnosis), the corresponding PPVs were 20% and 79%. The subset with both AS and uSpA diagnoses (overlap = 12%) were as likely to fulfil the mNY criteria as the group that had been coded as AS only.Conclusions: The diagnosis codes for AS or uSpA had high PPVs, suggesting that our case identification in the Swedish NPR can be used for nationwide, population-based, epidemiological studies of these diseases.

Psoriatic arthritis: an evolving matter.

Psoriatic arthritis is a multifaceted disease, raising the discussion of its position between a single isolated disease or a part or subset of spondyloarthritis. New developments in the several fields of knowledge are paving the way for a new look at this disease. Several sets of criteria were proposed over the years for classifying psoriatic arthritis. Recent are the CASPAR criteria.1 The patient must have inflammatory articular disease (joint, spine or entheses) with three points from the following five categories: (1) evidence of current psoriasis or a personal or familial history of psoriasis; (2) typical psoriatic nail dystrophy; (3) absence of rheumatoid factor; (4) current dactylitis or a history of dactylitis; (5) radiographic evidence of juxta articular new bone formation. A score of 2 is assigned to current psoriasis; all other features are assigned a score of 1. These classification criteria allow the inclusion of many patients and various clinical phenotypes (including axial forms) in a definition of psoriatic arthritis. The question is if psoriatic arthritis fits into the spondyloarthritis frame too. Over the past few years, the ASAS group (Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society) developed and proposed new classification criteria for axial and peripheral forms of spondyloarthritis.2 These classifications allow the recognition of several clinical or phenotypical presentations of the disease3: axial spondyloarthritis, radiographic (corresponding to ankylosing spondylitis), non-radiographic; peripheral articular …

Impaired response to treatment with tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors in smokers with axial spondyloarthritis

ObjectivesTo investigate the impact of smoking on the response to treatment with a first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in a real-life cohort.MethodsPatients fulfilling...

Resonancia magnética en espondiloartritis axial: estudio Delphi sobre pautas de actuación y realización

ObjectiveThe term axial spondyloarthritis refers to a group of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases with a common genetic basis that course with axial and peripheral involvement and enthesitis. Recently, the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) established some diagnostic criteria, including for the first time magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. Given the difficulties of obtaining MRI in some environments and the lack of experience with axial spondyloarthritis, a group of radiologists and rheumatologists sought to establish some practical guidelines to ensure the correct use of MRI in this disease. Material and methodsUsing the Delphi method, we used a questionnaire with 49 items stratified into 4 blocks to survey 46 experts in the MRI diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis. ResultsThe experts agreed on 82% of the items. The degree of agreement was 100% in the block “Importance of early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis”, 69% in the block “Optimization of the use of MRI in the diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis”, 93% in the block “Use of MRI in axial spondyloarthritis: Technical aspects”, and 57% in the block “Usefulness of MRI in the prognosis, follow-up, and evaluation of the response to treatment in axial spondyloarthritis”. ConclusionsDespite the importance of MRI in the early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis, this study shows the need for standardization and points to relative disagreement about how to use MRI in the follow-up of the disease and evaluation of the response to treatment. The results of this study can help improve the use of MRI in axial spondyloarthritis.

Remission in nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor-α drugs: an Italian multicenter study.

To investigate the possibility of achieving partial remission (PR) in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) versus ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonists, such as adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN), and infliximab (IFX), in a real clinical practice setting. The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) 20, ASAS40, and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score were also calculated. A retrospective study was conducted in patients with axSpA treated with ADA, ETN, and IFX from 2000 to 2013. All patients fulfilled the ASAS or the modified New York criteria. PR was reached when the score was < 20 mm (on a visual analog scale of 0-100 mm) in each of these domains: (1) patient global assessment, (2) pain, (3) function, and (4) inflammation. A total of 321 patients with axSpA were treated. Among them, 62 were nr-axSpA while the remaining 259 were AS. Log-rank test to compare survival curves showed that the probability of obtaining PR in nr-axSpA and AS during treatment with anti-TNF-α was not significantly different. At 12 weeks of exposure to the first anti-TNF-α drug, PR was achieved in 7 patients with nr-axSpA (11.3%) and in 68 patients with AS (26.2%). Our results, obtained from clinical practice, showed that PR is an achievable target of anti-TNF-α treatment in nr-axSpA. The PR rate, as a reliable indicator of sustained effectiveness, is similar in nr-axSpA and in AS.

Efficacy of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis

©2014 Turkish League Against Rheumatism. All rights reserved. Objectives: This study aims to investigate the efficacy of tumor necrosis factor-alpha blockers such as infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. Patients and methods: The outcome of tumor necrosis factor-alpha blocker treatment was analyzed retrospectively in 59 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who were being treated in our clinic during last nine years. The patients’ Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) 20 and ASAS 40 response rates, adverse drugs effects, and treatment compliance were evaluated. Results: ASAS 20 response was achieved by 89.8% of the patients in the third month, and by 93.2% in the sixth month. ASAS 40 response was achieved by 61% of the patients in the third and sixth month. No statistically significant difference was detected between the three tumor necrosis factor-alpha blockers with regards to the ASAS 40 response rates. Mild infections, observed in 31 of the patients, were the most common side effects. Serious side effect was observed in only one patient. The number of patients who withdrew from the treatment for various reasons was six. Conclusion: Treatment with infliximab, etanercept, or adalimumab is clinically effective and safe.

Clinical Disease Pattern and Drug Evaluation of Patients with Seronegative Spondyloarthritis at the Outpatient Department

Objective: There are a number of diseases in the spondyloarthritis (SpA) family. In this study, we evaluated the clinical disease pattern and drug use of outpatient department (OPD) patients with SpA. Methods: During a one-month period, we consecutively enrolled 100 patients with SpA. The diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) was based on the modified New York criteria and that of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) followed The ClASsification of Psoriatic ARthritis (CASPAR) criteria. The new Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria were used for the diagnosis of axial or peripheral SpA. Patients’ demographic characteristics, disease activity and laboratory tests were fully assessed. Medications currently used with the SpA family include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and TNF-α blockers. Results: A total of 100 SpA patients were consecutively enrolled in this short-term OPD survey. The male-to-female ratio of the enrolled patients was about 2:1 (66 males, 34 females). The clinical disease patterns of the 100 patients included 69 AS, 15 PsA, 12 non-radiographic axial SpA and 4 peripheral SpA. Uveitis was the most common extraarticular feature. Patients with positive HLA-B27 had higher Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) scores, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores and CRP. Male AS patients seemed to have a higher CRP level and more severe sacroiliitis. AS patients receiving anti-TNFa therapy had significantly higher BASFI and BASDAI scores. AS patients had higher BASFI scores, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and CRP levels but no difference in BASDAI scores when compared to non-radiographic axial SpA patients. In terms of NSAIDs use, 45% of patients took cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (celecoxib, etoricoxib), 18% preferential COX-2 inhibitors (meloxicam), 30% nonselective NSAIDs (diclofenac, etodolac, naproxen), and 5% of patients used no NSAIDs. Besides, a higher percentage (33%) of our patients with SpA received regular anti-TNFα therapy (etanercept 17, adalimumab 15, golimumab 1). Conclusion: This OPD survey of Taiwan SpA patients disclosed not a small percentage (16%) of Taiwan SpA patients had either axial or peripheral SpA. The lack of significant difference in the BASDAI between AS and axial SpA suggests anti-TNFα therapy is indicated when traditional NSAIDs fail in axial SpA patients.

Classification and diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis--what is the clinically relevant difference?

The Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have added nonradiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) to the classic ankylosing spondylitis (AS) as defined by the modified New York criteria. However, some confusion remains about differences between classification and diagnosis of axSpA. Our objective was to analyze differences between classification and diagnostic criteria by discussing each feature of the classification criteria based on real cases. The clinical features of the ASAS classification criteria were evaluated in relation to their significance for an expert diagnosis of axSpA. Twenty cases referred to our tertiary center outpatient clinic were selected because of an incorrect diagnosis of axSpA: 10 cases in which axSpA had been excluded initially because the classification criteria were not fulfilled, and 10 patients who had been previously diagnosed with axSpA because the classification criteria were fulfilled. Upon reevaluation, the former were diagnosed with axSpA while the latter had other diseases. All items that are part of the classification criteria show some variability related to their relevance for a diagnosis of axSpA. There are clinical features suggestive of axSpA that are not part of the classification criteria. Misinterpretation of imaging procedures contributed to false-positive results. Rarely, other diseases may mimic axSpA. Because the sensitivity and specificity of the axSpA classification criteria have been around 80% in clinical trials, some false-positive and false-negative cases were expected. It is hoped that their detailed description and discussion will help to increase the understanding of diagnosing axSpA in relation to the ASAS classification criteria.

The changing clinical picture and epidemiology of spondyloarthritis.

In the past decade, major progress has been made in the recognition, classification and treatment of spondyloarthritis (SpA). Classification criteria have been developed for axial and peripheral SpA by the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) as a response to new insight into the clinical picture and unmet needs. The ASAS criteria have contributed to a better understanding of the full spectrum of axial and peripheral SpA and of the potential for treatment. However, whether all patients fulfilling these criteria should be considered as having true SpA is a matter of debate. Furthermore, the implementation of the ASAS criteria might lead to an increase in the reported prevalence of SpA, as patients who were previously unidentified could now be classified as having the disease, which might have consequences for healthcare budgets. In this Review, the changes in the clinical picture and epidemiology of SpA are discussed in light of the ASAS classification criteria for SpA.

Updated guidelines for the management of axial disease in psoriatic arthritis.

Axial involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) remains common and can be defined in terms of spinal disease alone or in combination with peripheral manifestations. Diagnosis is based upon inflammatory spinal symptoms or the presence of radiological sacroiliitis and other radiographic signs of spondylitis, or by criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) defined by ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society). Although recent data are scarce for efficacy of traditional therapies for axial disease (e.g., nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, methotrexate, etc.), limited data are available for targeted biologics and novel agents. We identify and evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic interventions for treatment of axial disease in PsA. This review is an update of the axial PsA section of the treatment recommendations project by the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

Spontaneous, drug-induced, and drug-free remission in peripheral and axial spondyloarthritis

In spondyloarthritis (SpA), spontaneous remission is best described in reactive arthritis, a form of peripheral SpA. Prior SpA observational studies suggested that a significant percentage of patients reached spontaneous remission; however, these patients were followed up under older, broader European Spondyloarthropathy Study Group (ESSG) criteria or were not defined by specific criteria. In general, they were mixed populations of peripheral and axial disease, and the subsets were not differentiated when assessing end points such as remission. There are limited data on the natural history of axial SpA, in part because of the evolution of the criteria with the more recently developed Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria, including the designation of non-radiographic axial SpA and peripheral SpA. Clinical trials have been conducted with various remission end points including withdrawal of therapy to determine remission maintenance. The following review addresses the potential for remission in axial and peripheral SpA based on the data from both observational studies and clinical trials.

The concept of spondyloarthritis: where are we now?

The term spondyloarthritis (SpA) encompasses a group of diseases characterized by inflammation in the spine and in the peripheral joints, and other clinical features such as uveitis, dactylitis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and association with human leukocyte antigen (HLA) B27. The spectrum of SpA encompasses axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and peripheral spondyloarthritis including psoriatic arthritis (PsA), reactive arthritis (ReA), and inflammatory bowel disease-associated arthritis. In recent years, there has been tremendous progress in understanding the natural history and pathogenetic mechanisms underlying SpA leading to the development of effective treatments. It has become imperative to identify the disease early, and accurately, to avail patients of effective treatments in a safe manner. The development of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria has been a welcome advance in this regard. This article provides a historical evolution of the concept of SpA, from the Rome Criteria to the ASAS criteria, current issues and barriers with the use of ASAS criteria, and the work that still needs to be done moving forward.