Objectives To investigate the prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in patients with chronic back pain (CBP) of less than 2 years (2y) duration referred to the rheumatologist, the... Show moreObjectives To investigate the prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in patients with chronic back pain (CBP) of less than 2 years (2y) duration referred to the rheumatologist, the development of diagnosis over time, and patient characteristics of those developing definite (d-)axSpA over 2y. Methods We analysed the 2y data from SPondyloArthritis Caught Early, a European cohort of patients (<45 years) with CBP (>= 3 months, <= 2y) of unknown origin. The diagnostic workup comprised evaluation of clinical SpA features, acute phase reactants, HLA-B27, radiographs and MRI (sacroiliac joints and spine), with repeated assessments. At each visit (baseline, 3 months, 1y and 2y), rheumatologists reported a diagnosis of axSpA or non-axSpA with level of confidence (LoC; 0-not confident at all to 10-very confident). Main outcome: axSpA diagnosis with LoC >= 7 (d-axSpA) at 2y. Results In 552 patients with CBP, d-axSpA was diagnosed in 175 (32%) at baseline and 165 (30%) at 2y. Baseline diagnosis remained rather stable: at 2y, baseline d-axSpA was revised in 5% of patients, while 8% 'gained' d-axSpA. Diagnostic uncertainty persisted in 30%. HLA-B27+ and baseline sacroiliitis imaging discriminated best 2y-d-axSpA versus 2y-d-non-axSpA patients. Good response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and MRI-sacroiliitis most frequently developed over follow-up in patients with a new d-axSpA diagnosis. Of the patients who developed MRI-sacroiliitis, 7/8 were HLA-B27+ and 5/8 male. Conclusion A diagnosis of d-axSpA can be reliably made in nearly one-third of patients with CBP referred to the rheumatologist, but diagnostic uncertainty may persist in 5%-30% after 2y. Repeated assessments yield is modest, but repeating MRI may be worthwhile in male HLA-B27+ patients. Show less
Solitano, V.; Facheris, P.; Petersen, M.; D'Amico, F.; Ortoncelli, M.; Aletaha, D.; ... ; Danese, S. 2023
Background and Aims: The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) proposed measures to address severe side effects linked to Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in immune-mediated inflammatory... Show moreBackground and Aims: The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) proposed measures to address severe side effects linked to Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID). Use of these medications in individuals aged 65 and older, those at high cardiovascular risk, active or former long-term smokers, and those with increased cancer risk should be considered only if no alternatives exist. Caution is advised when administering JAKi to patients at risk of venous thromboembolism. We aim to implement recommendations from regulatory guidelines based on areas of uncertainty identified. Methods: A two-round modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methodology study was conducted. A panel of 21 gastroenterologists, dermatologists and rheumatologists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the appropriateness of administering a JAKi for each proposed clinical scenario. Scores for appropriateness were categorized as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. Two rounds were performed, each with online surveys and a virtual meeting to enable discussion and rating of each best practice. Results: Round 1 involved participants rating JAKi appropriateness and suggesting descriptors to reduce uncertainty. Survey results were discussed in a virtual meeting, identifying areas of disagreement. In round 2, participants rated their agreement with descriptors from round 1, and the level of uncertainty and disagreement reduced. Age flexibility is recommended in the absence of other risk factors. Active counseling on modifiable risks (e.g., overweight, mild hyperlipidemia and hypertension) and smoking cessation is advised. Uncertainty persists regarding cancer risk due to various factors. Conclusions: We outlined regulatory guidance without a personalized evaluation of the patient's risk profile might lead to uncertainty and become an arid technicality. Therefore, we identified gaps and implemented PRAC recommendations to help health professionals in clinical practice. Show less
