Efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and non-biological interventions: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objective

To update the evidence of non-biological treatments for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), as a basis for the 2022 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ASAS-EULAR) recommendations for the management of axSpA.

Methods

A systematic literature review (2016–2021) on efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and non-biological pharmacological treatments was performed, up to 1 January 2022. The research question was formulated according to the PICO format: Population: adult patients with r-axSpA and nr-axSpA; Intervention: non-pharmacological and non-biological pharmacological treatments; Comparator: active comparator or placebo; Outcomes: all relevant efficacy and safety outcomes. Type of studies included were: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies (for efficacy of non-pharmacological treatments, and safety), qualitative studies. Cohen’s effect size (ES) was calculated for non-pharmacological and risk ratio (RR) for pharmacological treatments.

Results

Of 107 publications included, 63 addressed non-pharmacological interventions, including education (n=8) and exercise (n=20). The ES for education on disease activity, function, mobility was small to moderate (eg. Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), ES: 0.06–0.59). Exercise had moderate to high ES on these outcomes (eg. BASDAI, ES: 0.14–1.43). Six RCTs on targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) showed efficacy of tofacitinib, upadacitinib and filgotinib (phase 2 only) in r-axSpA (range RR vs placebo for ASAS20: 1.91–3.10), while apremilast and nilotinib were not efficacious. Studies on conventional synthetic DMARDs (n=3), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, n=8) and other drugs (n=12) did not provide new evidence on efficacy/safety (efficacy of NSAIDs confirmed; limited efficacy of short-term glucocorticoids in one RCT).

Conclusions

Education, exercise and NSAIDs confirmed to be efficacious in axSpA. JAKi were proved efficacious in r-axSpA.

Related collections

Most cited references 109

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Jonathan A C Sterne, Jelena Savović, Matthew J L Page … (2023)

0 comments Cited 8600 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors.

Jill Hayden, Danielle van der Windt, Jennifer L Cartwright … (2013)

Previous work has identified 6 important areas to consider when evaluating validity and bias in studies of prognostic factors: participation, attrition, prognostic factor measurement, confounding measurement and account, outcome measurement, and analysis and reporting. This article describes the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool, which includes questions related to these areas that can inform judgments of risk of bias in prognostic research.A working group comprising epidemiologists, statisticians, and clinicians developed the tool as they considered prognosis studies of low back pain. Forty-three groups reviewing studies addressing prognosis in other topic areas used the tool and provided feedback. Most reviewers (74%) reported that reaching consensus on judgments was easy. Median completion time per study was 20 minutes; interrater agreement (κ statistic) reported by 9 review teams varied from 0.56 to 0.82 (median, 0.75). Some reviewers reported challenges making judgments across prompting items, which were addressed by providing comprehensive guidance and examples. The refined Quality In Prognosis Studies tool may be useful to assess the risk of bias in studies of prognostic factors.

0 comments Cited 922 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk with Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Steven R. Ytterberg, Deepak Bhatt, Ted Mikuls … (2022)

Increases in lipid levels and cancers with tofacitinib prompted a trial of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cancers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib as compared with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.