Search

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of protocol violations in the treat-to-target group in the Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis (TICOSPA) trial and to compare the proportion of patients optimally treated according to the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS)/EULAR 2016 recommendations for patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) between the treat-to-target versus usual care (UC) arms., Methods: This study was a cluster-randomized, controlled 48-week trial including patients with axSpA who fulfilled the ASAS criteria, had an Axial Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Score >2.1, and were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug naive. Eighteen axSpA expert centers were randomly allocated to one treatment arm: (a) treat-to-target prespecified management strategy (four-week visits), and (b) UC treatment decisions at the rheumatologist's discretion (12-week visits). Protocol violations in the treat-to-target arm and the fulfillment of the 2016 ASAS/EULAR recommendations in both arms were evaluated at every visit. ASAS Health Index (ASAS-HI) and disease activity outcomes at 48 weeks were compared between treat-to-target violators versus nonviolators. Patients treated according to the ASAS/EULAR recommendations were compared between both arms., Results: A total of 160 patients initiated the trial (80 patients with treat to target; 80 patients with UC). In the treat-to-target arm, 51.2% patients violated the protocol at least once (62.2% of violations resulting in maintenance/reduction of treatment against protocol). After 48 weeks, treat-to-target violators versus nonviolators showed similar ratios of ASAS-HI improvement. The proportion of patients managed according to the ASAS/EULAR recommendations after the first 12 weeks were 63.9% versus 61.8% for the treat-to-target and UC arms, respectively., Conclusion: Protocol violations in the treat-to-target arm in the TICOSPA trial were frequent, although they did not have an impact on the rate of the primary outcome. The groups with UC was optimally treated, partly explaining the nonachievement of the primary objective in the TICOSPA trial., (© 2024 The Author(s). Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: The Berlin algorithm was developed to help diagnose axial SpA (axSpA), but new studies suggest some features typical of SpA are less specific than previously assumed. Furthermore, evidence is lacking for other SpA subtypes (e.g. peripheral SpA). We aimed to review the evidence on the performance of SpA features for diagnosing each SpA subtype., Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of studies reporting the diagnostic performance of one or more SpA features in patients with suspected SpA. The external reference was the rheumatologist's diagnosis of SpA. Meta-analysis was performed, separately for each SpA subtype, to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-, respectively). Meta-regression assessed the effect of covariates (e.g. feature's prevalence) on each feature's performance., Results: Of 13 844 articles screened, 46 were included. Sacroiliitis on MRI, damage on pelvic radiographs and elevated CRP had the best balance between LR+ and LR- (LR+ 3.9-17.0, LR- 0.5-0.7) for diagnosing axSpA. HLA-B27 had an LR+ lower than anticipated (LR+ 3.1). Inflammatory back pain (IBP) had a low LR+ (LR+ ≈1), but substantially decreased the likelihood of axSpA when absent (LR- 0.3). Conversely, peripheral features and extramusculoskeletal manifestations showed a high LR+ (LR+ 1.6-5.0), but were as common in axSpA as non-axSpA (LR- ≈1). The specificity of most features was reduced in settings when these were highly prevalent. Limited data precluded a detailed analysis on diagnosing other SpA subtypes., Conclusion: Imaging features and CRP have good diagnostic value for axSpA. However, the specificity of other features, especially HLA-B27 and IBP, is lower than previously known., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To compare spinal symptoms and spinal/hip mobility at baseline and 2 years in early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and non-axSpA chronic back pain (BP) patients., Methods: Baseline and 2 years data of the SPondyloarthritis Caught Early cohort were analysed. Outcomes assessed: overall BP, BP at night, morning stiffness (MS) intensity, MS duration, occiput-to-wall distance (OWD), cervical rotation, chest expansion, lateral spinal flexion (LSF), modified Schober test (mSchober), intermalleolar distance (IMD) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI). Linear or zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to compare 2 years outcomes between groups (adjusting for baseline value, sex, age and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs)., Results: There were 294 axSpA and 123 non-axSpA patients (mean symptom duration: 13 months). At baseline, non-axSpA patients had worse symptoms and mobility, except OWD (eg, mean(SD): BP at night 3.6 (2.9) axSpA vs 4.6 (2.7) non-axSpA; OWD 0.5 (1.2) vs 0.1 (0.7)). After 2 years, all symptoms and cervical rotation significantly improved in both groups, but LSF and mSchober only in axSpA. In multivariable analyses, axSpA was associated with larger improvements in BP at night (β (95% CI): -0.85 (-1.47; -0.23)), mSchober (0.26 (0.03; 0.50)), IMD (4.86 (1.93; 7.80)) and BASMI (-0.24 (-0.41; -0.08)), and with lower likelihood of a normal OWD (OR (95% CI): 0.09 (0.01; 0.83))., Conclusion: Over 2 years, all spinal symptoms and some mobility measures improved in both groups, but impairments remained prevalent (particularly in non-axSpA). Nevertheless, axSpA was associated with larger improvements in BP at night, mSchober, IMD and BASMI, but with more OWD impairment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SR has received research grants and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Sanofi. MvdS has acknowledged speakers fees from Janssen, Novartis, UCB and Beneke, consulting fees from Janssen, Novartis, Abbvie and UCB, and research support from Janssen, Novartis and UCB. SE has received consulting fees from Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, AbbVie and UCB. RR has received consulting and/or speaking fees from Advisory Boards from Abbvie, Novartis, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer and UCB. DvdH has acknowledge consulting fees from AbbVie, Argenx, BMS, Galapagos, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB; associate editor Annals Rheumatic Diseases, editorial board member Journal of Rheumatology and RMD Open, Advisor Assessment Axial Spondyloarthritis international Society and director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. FAvG has received grants/research supports from Stichting ASAS, Novartis and UCB, and received honoraria or consultation fees from Novartis, BMS, AbbVie, MSD, Janssen, Lily and UCB. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Uveitis is a common extra-musculoskeletal manifestation in Spondyloarthritis (SpA). The aim of this study was to analyze the prevalence of uveitis in SpA patients, its association with geographical areas and to determine whether its incidence was different before and after the biological era., Methods: ASAS-COMOSPA is a retrospective study that includes patients fulfilling ASAS SpA classification criteria from 22 countries. The overall prevalence of uveitis was calculated, and factors associated with the onset of a first episode of uveitis were evaluated using a Cox regression. A Log-Rank test was performed to compare the new onset of uveitis in the no biological era (SpA onset before 2000) vs biological era (SpA onset after 2000)., Results: 3984 patients were included. The likelihood of presenting a first uveitis episode increased over time, from a prevalence of 10.5% (95%CI 9.5%-11.4%) at the time of the SpA diagnosis to 46.6% (41.6%-51.5%) after 30 years since the SpA diagnosis. HLA-B27 positivity, family history of uveitis, peripheral enthesitis and IBD were associated with higher risk of uveitis. Patients with SpA disease onset after year 2000 showed a lower prevalence of uveitis compared with disease onset before year 2000 (8.2% vs 25.5%, p< 0.01), as well as a lower incidence (2.8 per 100 PY vs 6.1 per 100 PY, respectively)., Conclusion: In our study the risk of having suffered from at least one episode of uveitis ranged from 10% at the time of the diagnosis of axSpA to 47% after 30 years of disease duration. Patients with disease onset after biologic therapy introduction showed a significantly lower prevalence and incidence of first episodes of uveitis., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To follow up four previously identified classes 'pure axial spondyloarthritis' (axSpA) ('axial'), 'axSpA with peripheral signs' ('inflammatory back pain+peripheral'), 'axSpA at risk' and 'no spondyloarthritis' ('no SpA'). They reflect the expert-opinion-free construct or 'Gestalt' of chronic back pain suspicious of axSpA. The aim was to assess participants' transitions between these classes over time., Methods: Participants with chronic back pain of ≤2 years duration, suspicious of axSpA from the SPondyloArthritis Caught Early cohort were analysed. Latent class (LCA) and latent transition analysis (LTA) using clinical, laboratory and imaging data at baseline and 2 years were calculated. Conditional and marginal probabilities were obtained, reflecting the probability of a spondyloarthritis feature in a class and the probability of the participant's class membership, respectively. Transitional probabilities were extracted revealing potential switches across classes. The analyses were performed in all participants using imputations for missing data and in participants with full data at baseline and 2 years., Results: Baseline and 2 years LCA models were constructed for 702 participants, resulting in the same four-class model as previously described. LTA revealed only a 3% transition from the 'no SpA' to the 'at-risk' class from baseline to 2 years with all other participants remaining in their initially assigned class. Sensitivity analysis on 384 participants with complete data at both baseline and 2 years showed similar results, underlining the model's robustness., Conclusions: Transitions between the four classes over 2 years were basically inexistent, highlighting the unlikelihood of developing new class-defining features of axSpA after an initial clinical workup., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB has received travelling grants and adds board fees from Janssen, speaker fees from Janssen and AbbVie and projects grants from Pfizer; AS has received speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Novartis, UCB and Lilly. DvdH has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Argenx, BMS, Galapagos, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB Pharma and is an associate editor of Annals Rheumatic Diseases, editorial board member of Journal of Rheumatology and RMD Open, Advisor Assessment of Axial Spondyloarthritis international Society and director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. RL has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from AbbVie, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. RL is owner of Rheumatology Consultancy BV. MdH has received consultancy fees of UCB Pharma. SE has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Eli Lilly and research support from UCB Pharma. RR has received travelling grants, consulting and/or speaking fees, Advisory Boards fees from Abbvie, Novartis, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, and UCB. FvG reports research grants from Stichting vrienden van Sole Mio, Stichting ASAS, research grants and consultancy fees from Novartis, research grants from UCB, fees from MSD, consultancy fees from Abb Vie, fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Eli Lilly, is a full time employee of the LUMC and member of the ASAS EC and the ASAS treasurer. SR has received grants from AbbVie, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, UCB, Sanofi. The other authors have not declared any COI., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To explore the agreement between patient-reported flare status and clinically significant flare status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission., Method: Patients with RA in remission for ≥12 months on stable treatment were included in the ARCTIC REWIND tapering trials and pooled 12-month data used in current analyses. Patient-reported flare status was assessed according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology flare questionnaire; 'Are you having a flare of your RA at this time?' (yes/no). A clinically significant flare was defined as a combination of Disease Activity Score (DAS) >1.6, increase in DAS of ≥0.6 and 2 swollen joints, or the rheumatologist and patient agreed that a clinically significant flare had occurred. Agreement coefficient, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of patient-reported flare status with regard to clinically significant flare status were determined., Results: Of 248 patients, 64% were women, age 56.1 (11.8) years, disease duration 4.1 (2.8-7.4) years, DAS 0.8 (0.3). 35% of patients reported a flare at least once, clinically significant flares were recorded in 21%. 48/53 clinically significant flares (91%) led to an intensification of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugss. In 621/682 (91%) visits, patient-reported and clinically significant flare status were in agreement, agreement coefficient 0.89. Sensitivity and specificity were both 91%, positive predictive value of patient-reported flare status 46% and negative predictive value 99%., Conclusion: Among patients in sustained remission, patient-reported flare status was accurate in ruling out a clinically significant flare. About half of the patient-reported flares were assessed to be clinically significant. These findings support a potential for using patient-reported flare status in remote monitoring of patients with RA in sustained remission., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosureof-interest/ (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: KH, NPS, JS, KEK, EM and LBN declare no conflict of interest. TU has received personal fees from Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer and UCB. DvdH has received personal fees from AbbVie, ArgenX, BMS, Galapagos, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB and Pharma. DvdH is an associate editor at Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, and an editorial member at the Journal of Rheumatology and RMD Open. She is also an advisor at the Assessment of Axial Spondyloarthritis International Society and Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV. DHS receives salary support from research contracts unrelated to the current research from CorEvitas, Janssen, Moderna, and Novartis. He receives royalties from UpToDate on unrelated content. Also, he receives honorarium from the American College of Rheumatology for editorial work. EAH reports grants from the Research Council of Norway, grants from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, during the conduct of the study. Also, he has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Elie Lilly, Gilead and Pfizer, and personal fees from Pfizer and UCB, outside the submitted work. SL has received a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim. A-BA has received personal fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To develop a consensual definition for the term 'early axial spondyloarthritis-axSpA'-and 'early peripheral spondyloarthritis-pSpA'., Methods: The ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-Spondyloarthritis EARly definition) steering committee convened an international working group (WG). Five consecutive steps were followed: (1) systematic literature review (SLR); (2) discussion of SLR results within the WG and ASAS community; (3) a three-round Delphi survey inviting all ASAS members to select the items that should be considered for the definition; (4) presentation of Delphi results to the WG and ASAS community and (5) ASAS voting and endorsement (2023 annual meeting)., Results: Following the SLR, consensus was to proceed with an expert-based definition for early axSpA (81% in favour) but not for pSpA (54% against). Importantly, early axSpA should be based on symptom duration taking solely axial symptoms into account. 151-164 ASAS members participated in the Delphi surveys. Consensus was achieved for considering the following items within early axSpA definition: duration of symptoms ≤2 years; axial symptoms defined as cervical/thoracic/back/buttock pain or morning stiffness; regardless of the presence/absence of radiographic damage. The WG agreed that in patients with a diagnosis of axSpA 'early axSpA' should be defined as a duration of ≤2 years of axial symptoms. Axial symptoms should include spinal/buttock pain or morning stiffness and should be considered by a rheumatologist as related to axSpA. The ASAS community endorsed this proposal (88% in favour)., Conclusions: Early axSpA has newly been defined, based on expert consensus. This ASAS definition should be adopted in research studies addressing early axSpA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: VN-C: Speaker fees—AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma; Consultancy fees- AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MoonLake, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma; Grants: AbbVie, Novartis. DB: Grant/research support from Novartis, and speaker fees from Janssen, Abbvie, and Galapagos. DvdH: Consulting AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma. Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. RBML: Consulting AbbVie, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Director of Rheumatology Consultancy BVD. DP: Research grant from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultation AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, UCB, Speaker AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. AvT: Speaker fees: Pfizer; Consulting fees: Novartis, Galapagos, UCB; Grants: Pfizer, UCB, Novartis XB: Abbvie, Amgen, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB. FEVdB: received speaker and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB FAvG: Research Grants—Novartis; consultancy -MSD, AbbVie, Novartis and BMS LG: Research grants UCB, Novartis, Consulting fees AbbVie, Acelyrin, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma CL-M: Speaker fees AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB Pharma. Consulting fees Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma. HM-O: Speaker fees/consultancy: ABvie, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. Research grants from Janssen, Novartis and UCB. AM: Consulting fees AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma. Grants: UCB RP-A: Speaker fees Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer. Consulting fees Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis. MR: Speaker- AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB Pharma; Consultancy AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma MvdS: Speaker -Janssen, Novartis, UCB; Consultancy Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB; Research Grants: Eli Lily, Novartis, UCB RS: Speaker - AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB; Consultancy—AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Grants: AbbVie, Novartis, UCB UW: Speaker fees NovartisS. SR: Research Grants—AbbVie, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB; consultancy—AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Upadacitinib improved the signs and symptoms of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) versus placebo over 14 weeks in the primary analysis of the SELECT-AXIS 2 nr-axSpA study. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib through 1 year in patients with nr-axSpA in SELECT-AXIS 2., Methods: Patients aged at least 18 years diagnosed with nr-axSpA who fulfilled the 2009 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria and were receiving stable background therapy were randomized to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo for the 52-week double-blind period. Efficacy was assessed using non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation (NRI-MI) and as-observed analyses for binary endpoints, and mixed-effects model repeated measures for continuous endpoints., Results: Of 314 randomized patients, 259 (upadacitinib, n = 129; placebo, n = 130) completed 52 weeks of treatment. More patients receiving upadacitinib versus placebo achieved ≥40% improvement in ASAS at week 52 (63% vs 43%, NRI-MI; nominal P < 0.001). Similar treatment effects were observed for the achievement of axSpA Disease Activity Score inactive disease (33% v 11%, NRI-MI; nominal P < 0.001). Overall, patients receiving upadacitinib versus placebo showed greater improvement in disease activity, inflammation, pain, function, enthesitis, and quality of life through 52 weeks. Adverse events were generally comparable between the treatment groups. No opportunistic infections, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolic events, inflammatory bowel disease, or deaths were reported in those receiving upadacitinib., Conclusion: Treatment with upadacitinib showed sustained efficacy versus placebo with no new safety findings identified through 1 year. These results support the continued favorable benefit-risk profile of upadacitinib treatment for nr-axSpA., (© 2024 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Spinal radiographic progression is an important outcome in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). The objective of the phase IIIb SURPASS study was to compare spinal radiographic progression in patients with radiographic axial SpA treated with secukinumab (interleukin-17A inhibitor) versus adalimumab biosimilar (Sandoz adalimumab [SDZ-ADL]; tumor necrosis factor inhibitor)., Methods: Biologic-naive patients with active radiographic axial SpA, at high risk of radiographic progression (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hsCRP] ≥5 mg/L and/or ≥1 syndesmophyte[s] on spinal radiographs), were randomized (1:1:1) to secukinumab (150/300 mg) or SDZ-ADL (40 mg). The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression (change from baseline [CFB] in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS] ≤0.5) on secukinumab versus SDZ-ADL at week 104 (primary endpoint), mean CFB-mSASSS, proportion of patients with ≥1 syndesmophyte(s) at baseline with no new syndesmophyte(s), and safety were evaluated., Results: Overall, 859 patients (78.5% male, mSASSS 16.6, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index 7.1, hsCRP 20.4 mg/L, and 73.0% with ≥1 syndesmophyte[s]) received secukinumab 150 mg (n = 287), secukinumab 300 mg (n = 286), or SDZ-ADL (n = 286). At week 104, the proportion of patients with no radiographic progression was 66.1%, 66.9%, and 65.6% (P = not significant, both secukinumab doses) and mean CFB-mSASSS was 0.54, 0.55, and 0.72 in secukinumab 150 mg, secukinumab 300 mg, and SDZ-ADL arms, respectively. Overall, 56.9%, 53.8%, and 53.3% of patients on secukinumab 150 mg, secukinumab 300 mg, and SDZ-ADL, respectively, with ≥1 syndesmophyte(s) at baseline did not develop new syndesmophyte(s) by week 104. There were no unexpected safety findings., Conclusion: Spinal radiographic progression over two years was low with no significant difference between secukinumab and SDZ-ADL arms. The safety of both treatments was consistent with previous reports., (© 2024 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Purpose of Review: This review evaluates recent advancements in disease-modifying therapies for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)., Recent Findings: A recent study could not demonstrate an additional effect of NSAID therapy on golimumab [Tumor Necrosis Factor-α inhibitor (TNFi)] on structural progression; however, this might be due to the fact that the study was underpowered. While DMARDs have shown promise in suppressing inflammation, their impact on structural progression remains uncertain. A well powered trial showed no difference in spinal progression between secukinumab [Interleukin17A inhibitor (IL17Ai)] and adalimumab-biosimilar (TNFi). Preliminary data on Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) focus on MRI findings but lack evidence on radiographic spinal progression. While some studies suggest promising outcomes, others reveal limitations and inconclusive findings., Summary: Recent studies explore the effectiveness of NSAIDs, biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs like TNFi and IL-17i, as well as JAK inhibitors in axSpA. Conflicting evidence surrounds these therapies' ability to impede structural progression, with challenges in study design and interpretation. Moreover, changes in demographics and treatment methods underscore the importance of examining trends over time when assessing disease outcomes. Ultimately, ongoing research could benefit from new imaging tools when evaluating therapeutic strategies for modifying disease progression in axSpA., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and work productivity in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and non-axSpA patients with chronic back pain of < 2 years (2 y)., Methods: Baseline and 2 y data of patients included in the SPondyloArthritis Caught Early cohort were analyzed. HRQoL was assessed by the physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey; and presenteeism, absenteeism, work productivity loss (WPL) and activity impairment (AI) by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. Linear or zero-inflated negative binomial regression was conducted to compare 2 y outcomes between groups (axSpA and non-axSpA), adjusting for the baseline value, sex, age and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs., Results: There were 265 axSpA and 108 non-axSpA patients: males 52% vs 26%, mean age 29 vs 31 years, respectively. At baseline, non-axSpA patients showed worse PCS (mean 28.6 axSpA vs 26.6 non-axSpA), presenteeism (31.1% vs 37.3%), absenteeism (8.2% vs 10.3%), WPL (34.7% vs 44.1%) and AI (39.6% vs 48.5%). MCS was not impaired in either group. After 2 y, PCS, presenteeism, WPL and AI significantly improved in both groups; absenteeism only in axSpA. In multivariable analysis, axSpA (vs non-axSpA) was associated with 22% less WPL (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.62; 0.98]) and 18% less AI (0.82 [0.69; 0.97])., Conclusion: HRQoL and work productivity are more impaired in non-axSpA (vs axSpA) at baseline and still after 2 y. Although most outcomes improve in both groups, axSpA is associated with larger improvements in work productivity and activity impairment., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To assess the association of posterior element (PE) and facet joint (FJ) inflammation with subsequent new FJ ankylosis (FJA) on MRI, in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA)., Methods: Patients from the Sensitive Imaging in Ankylosing Spondylitis cohort, inclusion criteria r-axSpA and ≥1 radiographic spinal syndesmophyte, were studied. MRI of the full spinal was performed at baseline, 1 and 2 years. PE/FJ inflammatory lesions and FJA were assessed per vertebral unit (VU) level by three readers. With multilevel time-lagged autoregressive generalised estimated equations, the association between PE/FJ inflammation and the subsequent development of FJA was investigated, taking the reader and VU levels into account., Results: Out of the 58 patients with at least 2 reader scores available, mean age 49 (SD 10) years, 84% men, 59% had baseline PE inflammation, 24% had FJ inflammation and 26% had FJA. PE inflammation was more prevalent in the lower thoracic spine and FJ inflammation in the upper thoracic spine. VU with PE or FJ inflammation showed subsequent new FJA in two and one VU levels, respectively. The probability of developing FJA doubled with prior FJ inflammation. In multilevel analysis, FJ inflammation was associated with subsequent FJA (OR=3.8, 95% CI: 1.5 to 9.8), while no association was found between PE inflammation and new FJA (OR=1.2 (0.6-2.4))., Conclusions: FJ inflammation is rare in severe r-axSpA, but when present, the likelihood of developing subsequent FJA is over three times higher compared with FJ without inflammation. This finding contributes to the understanding of the relationship between inflammation and ankylosis at the same anatomical location in patients with axSpA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To compare the long-term outcomes of three phenotypes of axial SpA (axSpA)., Methods: Patients with a clinical diagnosis of axSpA from the DESIR cohort were grouped into three phenotypes at baseline: 'Pure axSpA' ('Axial'), 'axSpA with peripheral signs' ('IBP+Peripheral') and 'axSpA at risk' ('At risk') by latent class analysis. Clinical and imaging data were collected up to 5 years. Clinical outcomes, measured in each visit, included disability (BASFI) and quality of life (QoL; SF36). Imaging outcomes included inflammatory and structural lesions on MRI and radiographs of spine and SIJ. The association between phenotype membership at baseline and each outcome was tested in multivariable GEE models., Results: In total, 576 patients with axSpA were included. 'At risk' patients had worse disability and QoL than 'Axial' patients over time. For instance, 'At risk' patients had on average 0.4 more points in BASFI over time than 'Axial' patients [β (95 % CI): 0.4 (0.2; 0.7)]. This difference was mostly noted in female patients who were HLA-B27 positive. In addition, the difference between the 'At risk' and 'Axial' phenotypes was higher in patients receiving bDMARDs than in those not (β=0.6 vs 0.5), since BASFI improved more in 'Axial' (∆BASFI: -1.3) than in 'At risk' (∆BASFI: -0.9) treated patients. There were no differences in disability and QoL between 'Axial' and 'IBP+Peripheral' patients. Imaging outcomes were worse in the 'Axial' phenotype than in the others over time., Conclusion: Patients with 'axSpA at risk' show worse self-reported outcomes over time and are less likely to benefit from anti-inflammatory treatment than those with a classical axSpA phenotype., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Alexandre Sepriano: speaking and/or consulting fees from Abbvie, Novartis, UCB and Lilly. Sofia Ramiro: research grants and/or consultancy fees: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Sanofi. Désirée van der Heijde: Received consulting fees from AbbVie, Argenx, Bayer, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB Pharma and is Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. Anna Moltó: Received consulting fees from AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, UCB Pharma. Cécile Gaujoux-Viala: reports serving as a consultant and on a speaker's bureau for AbbVie; Amgen; Biogen;Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Eli Lilly; Galapagos; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Medac; Merck-Serono; Mylan; Nordic Pharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche; Sandoz; Sanofi; and UCB Pharma. Maxime Dougados: Received consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Merck. Robert Landewé: Received consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB and is Director of Rheumatology Consultancy bv, (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess whether using ultrasound (US) in addition to clinical information versus only clinical information in a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy leads to more clinical remission and to less radiographic progression in RA., Methods: Patients with RA from the 2-year prospective BIODAM cohort were included. Clinical and US data (US7-score) were collected every 3 months and hands and feet radiographs every 6 months. At each visit, it was decided whether patients were treated according to the clinical definition of T2T with DAS44 remission as benchmark (T2T-DAS44). T2T-DAS44 was correctly applied if: (i) DAS44 remission had been achieved or (ii) if not, treatment was intensified. A T2T strategy also considering US data (T2T-DAS44-US) was correctly applied if: (i) both DAS44 and US remission (synovitis-score < 2, Doppler-score = 0) were present; or (ii) if not, treatment was intensified. The effect of T2T-DAS44-US on attaining clinical remission and on change in Sharp-van der Heijde score compared to T2T-DAS44 was analysed., Results: A total of 1016 visits of 128 patients were included. T2T-DAS44 was correctly followed in 24% of visits and T2T-DAS44-US in 41%. DAS44 < 1.6 was achieved in 39% of visits. Compared to T2T-DAS44, using the T2T-DAS44-US strategy resulted in a 41% lower likelihood of DAS44 remission [OR (95% CI): 0.59 (0.40;0.87)] and had no effect on radiographic progression [β(95% CI): 0.11 (- 0.16;0.39)] assessed at various intervals up to 12 months later., Conclusion: Our results do not suggest a benefit of using the US7-score in addition to clinical information as a T2T benchmark compared to clinical information alone. Key Points • Ultrasound has a valuable role in diagnostic evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis, but it is unclear whether adding ultrasound to the clinical assessment in a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy leads to more patients achieving remission and reduction in radiographic progression. • Our data from a real-world study demonstrated that adding information from ultrasound to the clinical assessment in a T2T strategy led to a lower rather than a higher likelihood of obtaining clinical remission as compared to using only clinical assessment. • Our data demonstrated that adding ultrasound data to a T2T strategy based only on clinical assessment did not offer additional protection against radiographic progression in patients with RA. • Adding US to a T2T strategy based on clinical assessment led to far more treatment intensifications (with consequences for costs and exposure to adverse events) without yielding a meaningful clinical benefit., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR).)

Objectives: To obtain an overview of recent evidence on efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in psoriatic arthritis (PsA)., Methods: This systematic literature research (SLR) investigated the efficacy and safety of conventional synthetic (cs), biological (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with PsA. A systematic database search using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted to identify relevant articles published since the previous update in 2019 until 28 December 2022. Efficacy was assessed in trials while for safety observational data were also considered. Adverse events of special interest were infections (including herpes zoster, influenza and tuberculosis), malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolisms, liver disease, laboratory changes and psychiatric adverse events. No meta-analyses were performed., Results: For efficacy, of 3946 articles screened, 38 articles (30 trials) were analysed. The compounds investigated included csDMARDs (leflunomide, methotrexate), bDMARDs inhibiting IL17 (bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, izokibep, secukinumab,), IL-23 (guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab), IL-12/23 (ustekinumab) as well as TNF (adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab) and Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi) (brepocitinib, deucravacitinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib). The compounds investigated were efficacious in improving signs and symptoms of PsA, improving physical functioning and quality of life. For safety, 2055 abstracts were screened, and 24 articles analysed: 15 observational studies and 9 long-term follow-ups of trials, assessing glucocorticoids, TNFi, IL-17i, JAKi, IL-12/23i and PDE4i (apremilast). Safety indicators were generally coherent with the previous SLR in 2019., Conclusion: The results of this SLR informed the task force responsible for the 2023 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for pharmacological management of PsA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AK, Speakers bureau, Consultancy: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. JSS: research grants from Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, Lilly, Galapagos; Royalties from Elsevier (textbook); consulting fees from Abbvie, Galapagos/Gilead, Novartis-Sandoz, BMS, Samsung, Sanofi, Chugai, R-Pharma, Lilly; Honoraria from Samsung, Lilly, R-Pharma, Chugai, MSD Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz; participation in advisory board from Astra-Zeneca. RJOF, research grants: Medac, Lilly; Consulting fees: Sanofi. HB, none. XB: Scientific grants: Abbvie, MSD, Novartis. Consultancies, honoraria and advisory board member for Abbvie, Amgen, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB. Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees: ASAS President, EULAR President Elect. DA, research grants: Galapagos, Lilly; Consulting fees: Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi. DGM, research grants: Janssen, Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis. UCB, BMS, Moonlake; consulting fees: Janssen, Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis. UCB, BMS, Moonlake, Celgene; honoraria: Janssen, Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis. UCB, BMS, Moonlake; support to attending meetings: Novartis Janssen. DvdH: consulting fees AbbVie, Argenx, Bayer, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB Pharma. Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. Associate editor Annals Rheumatic Diseases, editorial board member Journal of Rheumatology and RMD Open, Advisor Assessment Axial Spondyloarthritis international Society. IBM, Honoraria/consultation fees and grants/research supports: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Causeway Therapeutics, Cabaletta, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Evelo, Compugen, AstraZeneca, Moonlake; Non Exec Roles: NHS GGC Board Member, Evelo Board of Directors, Versus Arthritis Trustee Status; Stock or Stock Options: Evelo, Cabaletta, Compugen, Causeway Therapeutics, Dextera. BAE, none. KLW, Research: BMS, Pfizer; Consulting: Pfizer, AbbVie, Union Chimique Belge (UCB), Eli Lilly & Company, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Roche, Gilead, BMS, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, W-HB, Honoraria: Abbvie, Almirall, BMS, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB; Expert testimony: Novartis; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Abbvie, Almirall, BMS, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB. JWS, none. LG reports grants from AbbVie, Biogen, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, non-financial support from AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, outside the submitted work., (© European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, EULAR 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC-ND. No commercial re-use. No derivatives. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ on behalf of EULAR.”.)

Objective: New modes of action and more data on the efficacy and safety of existing drugs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) required an update of the EULAR 2019 recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of PsA., Methods: Following EULAR standardised operating procedures, the process included a systematic literature review and a consensus meeting of 36 international experts in April 2023. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were determined., Results: The updated recommendations comprise 7 overarching principles and 11 recommendations, and provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be used in monotherapy only for mild PsA and in the short term; oral glucocorticoids are not recommended. In patients with peripheral arthritis, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended and methotrexate preferred. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) should be initiated, without preference among modes of action. Relevant skin psoriasis should orient towards bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)-23p40, IL-23p19, IL-17A and IL-17A/F inhibitors. In case of predominant axial or entheseal disease, an algorithm is also proposed. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is proposed primarily after bDMARD failure, taking relevant risk factors into account, or in case bDMARDs are not an appropriate choice. Inflammatory bowel disease and uveitis, if present, should influence drug choices, with monoclonal tumour necrosis factor inhibitors proposed. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are also addressed., Conclusion: These updated recommendations integrate all currently available drugs in a practical and progressive approach, which will be helpful in the pharmacological management of PsA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: No support to any author for the present work. Outside the submitted work: LG: research grants: AbbVie, Biogen, Lilly, Novartis, UCB; consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB; non-financial support: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB; membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees: EULAR Treasurer. AK: speakers bureau, consultancy: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. RJOF: research grants: Medac, Lilly; consulting fees: Sanofi. DA: research grants: Galapagos, Lilly; consulting fees: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi. XB: research grants: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis; consultancies: AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB; membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees: ASAS President, EULAR President Elect. W-HB: honoraria: AbbVie, Almirall, BMS, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB; expert testimony: Novartis; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: AbbVie, Almirall, BMS, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB. IBM: honoraria/consultation fees non-exec roles: NHS GGC Board Member, Evelo Board of Directors, Versus Arthritis Trustee Status; stock or stock options: Evelo, Cabaletta, Compugen, Causeway Therapeutics, Dextera. DGM: research grants: Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, BMS, Moonlake; consulting fees: Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, BMS, Moonlake, Celgene; honoraria: Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, BMS, Moonlake. KLW: research grants: BMS, Pfizer; consulting: Pfizer, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Gilead, Novartis, Moderna, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma. AB: speakers fees: AbbVie, Amgen, AlphaSigma, AstraZeneca, Angelini, Biogen, BMS, Berlin-Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Teva, UCB, Zentiva; consultancies: Akros, AbbVie, Amgen, AlphaSigma, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Mylan, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sobi, UCB. PVB: consulting fees: AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer; honoraria: AbbVie, Bausch Health, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Gedeon Richter, IBSA Pharma, Infomed, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz; payment for expert testimony: Gedeon Richter; other: President, Hungarian Association of Rheumatologists. GRB: honoraria and/or speaker fees: AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer. JDC: honoraria: UCB. PC: research grants: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Jansen, Lilly, Novartis, UCB; consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. LE: consultation fee/advisory board: AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, BMS, Eli Lilly; research/educational grants: AbbVie, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Amgen, UCB, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sandoz, Pfizer. MLH: grant support: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biologics BV, Lundbeck Foundation, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Novartis, Nordforsk; honoraria: Pfizer, Medac, Sandoz; advisory board: AbbVie; past-chair of the steering committee of the Danish Rheumatology Quality Registry (DANBIO, DRQ), which receives public funding from the hospital owners and funding from pharmaceutical companies; cochair of EuroSpA, partly funded by Novartis. AI: research grants from AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis; honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Alfasigma, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, Sobi; EULAR Board Member; EULAR Congress Committee, Education Committee and Advocacy Committee Advisor; EULAR Past President. LEK: consultancies: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, UCB, Sanofi, GSK, Galapagos, Forward Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Janssen; has been representing rheumatology FOREUM scientific chair. RQ: consultancy and/or speaker’s honoraria from and/or participated in clinical trials and/or research projects sponsored by AbbVie, Amgen-Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, MSD, UCB. DM: honoraria: UCB, Janssen, GSK, AstraZeneca, AbbVie; support to meetings: Janssen. HM-O: grant support: Janssen, Novartis, UCB; honoraria and/or speaker fees: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB. PJM: grant support: AbbVie, Acelyrin, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genascence, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB; consulting fees: AbbVie, Acelyrin, Aclaris, Alumis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genascence, Inmagene, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Ventyx, Xinthera; honoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. PN: consulting fees and honoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, GSK, Novartis, UCB, Servatus; boards: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, GSK, Novartis, UCB; GRAPPA Steering Committee, Chair ASMPOC, ARA. LS: consulting fees: AbbVie, Almirall, Novartis, Janssen, Lilly, UCB, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria: AbbVie, Almirall, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Pfizer, Takeda, Galderma, Biogen, Celgene, Celltrion, Lilly, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim; support to attending meetings: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Galderma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim; participation in boards: AbbVie, Almirall, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Pfizer, Galderma, Biogen, Lilly, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim; GRAPPA Executive Board (elected), British Society for Medical Dermatology (BSMD) Committee. GS: honoraria: Novartis, Janssen. SJWS-W: grant support: Medical Research Council (MR/W027151/1). YT: research grants from Mitsubishi Tanabe, Eisai, Chugai, Taisho; speaking fees and/or honoraria from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Gilead, Chugai, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, Taisho, Bristol Myers, Pfizer, Taiho. FEVdB: consultancy honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. AZ: speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Lilly, UCB, Amgen; paid instructor for AbbVie, Novartis, UCB. DvdH: consulting fees AbbVie, Argenx, Bayer, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv; Associate Editor for Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases; Editorial Board Member for Journal of Rheumatology and RMD Open; Advisor Assessment Axial Spondyloarthritis International Society. JSS: research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Galapagos; royalties from Elsevier (textbook); consulting fees from AbbVie, Galapagos/Gilead, Novartis-Sandoz, BMS, Samsung, Sanofi, Chugai, R-Pharma, Lilly; honoraria from Samsung, Lilly, R-Pharma, Chugai, MSD, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz; participation in advisory board from AstraZeneca., (© European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, EULAR 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC-ND. No commercial re-use. No derivatives. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ on behalf of EULAR.)

Objective: (1) To compare the capacity to detect sacroiliac joint (SIJ) erosions and baseline-to-week 104 change in erosions between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radiographs in recent-onset axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA); and (2) to compare treatment-discriminatory capacities of MRI and radiographic scores for erosion detection in patients receiving etanercept in the Effect of Etanercept on Symptoms and Objective Inflammation in Nonradiographic axSpA (EMBARK) trial vs controls in the DESIR ( Devenir des Spondylarthropathies Indifférenciées Récentes ) cohort., Methods: Anonymized SIJ MRI and radiographs were assessed at patient and joint surface levels. Three readers evaluated MRI; 3 different readers evaluated radiographs. Final scores for comparison of radiographs and MRI for detection of erosions were assigned based on agreement of ≥ 2 of 3 readers' assessments., Results: At baseline, discordance in erosion detection between imaging methods was more frequent for MRI erosions in the absence of radiographic erosions (48/224 [21.4%] patients) than for radiographic erosions in the absence of MRI erosions (14/224 [6.3%] patients; P < 0.001). After 104 weeks, a decrease in erosions was observed on MRI but not radiographs in 49/221 (22.2%) patients, and on radiographs but not MRI in 6/221 (2.7%) patients ( P < 0.001). In the treatment-discriminant capacity analysis, the largest standardized differences between etanercept and control cohorts at week 104 were changes in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada MRI erosion discrete score, changes in erosion average score, and meeting the modified New York criteria on radiographs, with unadjusted/adjusted Hedges G effect sizes of 0.40/0.50, 0.40/0.56, and 0.40/0.43, respectively., Conclusion: In recent-onset axSpA, SIJ erosions and erosion change were observed more frequently on MRI than radiography. The significance of interval improvement of MRI erosions warrants further research. [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01258738, NCT01648907]., (Copyright © 2024 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Background: Tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to drug-free remission is an attractive treatment goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, although long-term effects of tapering and withdrawal remain unclear. We compared 3-year risks of flare between three conventional synthetic DMARD treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission., Methods: In this open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled patients aged 18-80 years with rheumatoid arthritis who had been in sustained remission for at least 1 year on stable conventional synthetic DMARD therapy. Patients from ten hospitals in Norway were randomly assigned (2:1:1) with centre stratification to receive stable conventional synthetic DMARDs, half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs, or half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs for 1 year followed by withdrawal of all conventional synthetic DMARDs. The primary endpoint of this part of the study was disease flare over 3 years, analysed as flare-free survival and risk difference in the per-protocol population with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01881308) and is completed., Findings: Between June 17, 2013, and June 18, 2018, 160 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive stable-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs (n=80), half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs (n=42), or half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs tapering to withdrawal (n=38). Four patients did not receive the intervention and 156 patients received the allocated treatment strategy. One patient was excluded due to major protocol violation and 155 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis. 104 (67%) of 156 patients were women and 52 (33%) were men. 139 patients completed 3-years follow-up without major protocol violation; 68 (87%) of 78 patients in the stable-dose group, 36 (88%) of 41 patients in the half-dose group and 35 (95%) of 37 patients in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. During the 3-year study period, 80% (95% CI 69-88%) were flare-free in the stable-dose group, compared with 57% (41-71%) in the half-dose group and 38% (22-53%) in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. Compared with stable-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs, the risk difference of flare was 23% (95% CI 6-41%, p=0·010) in the half-dose group and 40% (22-58%, p<0·0001) in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group, non-inferiority was therefore not shown. Adverse events were reported in 65 (83%) of 78 patients in the stable-dose group, 36 (90%) of 40 patients in the half-dose group, and 36 (97%) of 37 patients in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. One death occurred in the stable-dose conventional synthetic DMARD group (sudden death considered unlikely related to the study medication)., Interpretation: Two conventional synthetic DMARD tapering strategies were associated with significantly lower rates of flare-free survival compared with stable conventional synthetic DMARD treatment, and the data do not support non-inferiority. However, drug-free remission was achiveable for a significant subgroup of patients. This trial provides information on risk and benefits of different treatment strategies important for shared decision making., Funding: Research Council of Norway and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KEK and NPS report grants from The Research Council of Norway and from The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority during the conduct of the study. A-BA reports personal fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. ICO reports grants from EU commission, personal fees from Dilafor AB, the European Medicines Agency, and the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network, outside the submitted work and serves on a data safety monitoring board for Oslo University Hospital. CS reports personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work. TMM reports personal fees from Boehringer outside the submitted work. GB reports personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work and is a board member of Norwegian Society of Rheumatology. HH reports personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work. M-KAL reports personal fees from AbbVie outside the submitted work. TU reports personal fees from Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, and UCB, outside the submitted work. TKK reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos; and personal fees from Gilead, Janssen, Sandoz, and Grünenthal, outside the submitted work. DHS reports grants from CorEvitas, Horizon, Janssen, and Moderna and personal royalties on several UpToDate chapters, outside the submitted work; and is an unpaid board member of CARRA. DvdH reports personal fees from AbbVie, ArgenX, Bayer, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB, outside the submitted work; is an associate editor for Annals Rheumatic Diseases; is a director for Imaging Rheumatology BV; is an editorial board member Journal of Rheumatology and RMD Open; and is an advisor assessment for Axial Spondyloarthritis international Society. EAH reports grants from The Research Council of Norway and The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. SL reports grants from The Research Council of Norway and The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority during the conduct of the study. JS, HF, CAH, ÅL, IJWH, IMH and EM declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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 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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MLM: none. SR: Research Grants—AbbVie, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Consultancy—AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB. MvL: none. RS: none. RBML: Consultancy—AbbVie, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Director of Rheumatology Consultancy BVD. MvdS: Speaker—Janssen, Novartis, UCB. Consultancy—Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB. Research Grants:Janssen, Novartis, UCB. KMF: none. IJB: none. MvO: none. SE: Consultancy—AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB. RR: Consultancy: Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Amgen. DvdH: Consultancy—AbbVie, ArgenX, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB Pharma. Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. FAvG: Research Grants -Novartis. Consultancy—MSD, AbbVie, Novartis and BMS., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is the historic term used for decades for the HLA-B27-associated inflammatory disease affecting mainly the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) and spine. Classification criteria for AS have radiographic sacroiliitis as a dominant characteristic. However, with the availability of MRI of SIJ, it could be demonstrated that the disease starts long before definite SIJ changes become visible on radiographs. The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society, representing a worldwide group of experts reached consensus on changes in the nomenclature pertaining to axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), such as the terminology of diagnosis and of assessment of disease activity tools. These are important changes in the field, as experts in axSpA are now in agreement that the term axSpA is the overall term for the disease. A further differentiation, of which radiographic versus non-radiographic is only one aspect, may be relevant for research purposes. Another important decision was that the terms AS and radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) can be used interchangeably, but that the preferred term is r-axSpA. Based on the decision that axSpA is the correct terminology, a proposal was made to officially change the meaning of the ASDAS acronym to 'Axial Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Score'. In addition, for simplification it was proposed that the term ASDAS (instead of ASDAS-CRP) should be preferred and applied to the ASDAS calculated with C reactive protein (CRP). It is hoped that these changes will be used consequently for education, in textbooks, manuscripts and presentations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DvdH has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Argenx, Bayer, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB Pharma. She is Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv, associate editor of ARD, editorial board member of J Rheumatol and RMD Open, advisor of ASAS. AM has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma and Viatris. SR has received research grants and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Sanofi. MD has received consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Lilly, Novartis, Merck. FAvG has received consultation fees from Novartis, BMS, AbbVie, MSD, Janssen, Lily, UCB. LG has received research grants and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Acelyrin, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. RDI has received consulting fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, UCB. RBML has received consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Jansen, Pfizer and UCB, is director of Rheumatology Consultancy BV and past-president and executive member of ASAS. HM-O has received grant support from Janssen, Novartis and UCB. Honoraria and/or speaker fees from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB. VN-C has received consultancy/speaker/research grants from Abbvie, BMS, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Moonlake, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB. AP, Patient with AxSpa, Eupati Fellow, Patient Expert, Advocator, President of Cyprus League of People with Rheumatism, President of AGORA Federation, Secretary of Axial Spondylarthritis International Federation (ASIF), EULAR-Advocacy Committee Member-Pare Committee Member. DP has received research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, consulting fees from AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, and speaker fees from AbbVie, Canon, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Medscape, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer and UCB. MP has received consulting fees from Novartis as well as support for attending meetings and/or travel from Abbvie, Jannsen, Novartis and UCB. MR has receieved consulting/speaker fees from Abbvie, Chugai, Boehringer, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB. PDS-B has received consulting/ speaker's fees from AbbVie, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. AS has received speaking and/or consulting fees from Abbvie, Novartis, UCB and Lilly. JS has received gees for consultancies and for being a member of speakers’ bureau from Abbvie, Merck, Novartis and UCB. FEVdB has received consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis and UCB. IvdH-B has received consulting/speaker’s fees from UCB, Lilly, AbbVie, MSD, BMS, Novartis. PMM has received consulting/speaker’s fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. XB has received consulting/speaker’s fees Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Zuellig Pharma and is Member of the Editorial Board of ARD, ASAS President and EULAR President Elect., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ on behalf of EULAR.)

Objective: To assess which definition of remission best predicts good radiographic outcome (GRO) and good functional outcome (GFO) in rheumatoid arthritis, focusing the updated American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology criteria., Material and Methods: Meta-analyses of individual patient data (IPD) from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Six definitions of remission were considered: (1) Boolean with Patient Global Assessment (PGA)≤1 (Boolean); (2) Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI)≤3.3; (3) Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)≤2.8; (4) Boolean with PGA≤2 (Updated-Boolean); (5) Boolean with Physician Global Assessment (PhGA≤1) replacing PGA (Boolean-PhGA) and (6) Boolean excluding PGA (3VBoolean). GRO was defined as a worsening ≤0.5 units in radiographic score and GFO as a no worsening in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), that is, ∆HAQ-DI≤0.0 units. Relationships between each remission definition at 6 and/or 12 months and GRO and GFO during the second year were analysed. Pooled probabilities for each outcome for each definition and their predictive accuracy were estimated., Results: IPD from eight RCTs (n=4423) were analysed. Boolean, SDAI, CDAI, Updated-Boolean, Boolean-PhGA and 3VBoolean were achieved by 24%, 27%, 28%, 32%, 33% and 43% of all patients, respectively. GRO among patients achieving remission ranged from 82.4% (3VBoolean) to 83.9% (SDAI). 3VBoolean showed the highest predictive accuracy for GRO: 51.1% versus 38.8% (Boolean) and 44.1% (Updated-Boolean). The relative risk of GFO ranged from 1.16 (Boolean) to 1.05 (3VBoolean). However, the proportion of GFO correctly predicted was highest for the 3VBoolean (50.3%) and lowest for the Boolean (43.8%)., Conclusion: 3VBoolean definition provided the most accurate prediction of GRO and GFO, avoiding the risk of overtreatment in a substantial proportion of patients without increment in radiographic damage progression, supporting the proposal that 3VBoolean remission is preferable to guide immunosuppressive treatment. The patient's perspective, which must remain central, is best served by an additional patient-oriented target: a dual-target approach., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RJOF reports a research grant from Medac, Consulting fees from Sanofi Genzyme, and support for attending meetings from Medac and speaker fees from Sanofi Genzyme, unrelated with this work LG reports grants from AbbVie, Biogen, Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, UCB, personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, non-financial support from AbbVie, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Viatris, outside the submitted work PM: reports consulting/speakers fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB Pharma and is supported by NIHR, UCLH and BRC; unrelated with this work. DvdH is Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV and reports speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and UCB Pharma, unrelated with this work. JAPdS reports a research grant from Medac, Consulting fees from Amgen, MSD and Abbvie, speaker fees from Amgen, MSD and Abbvie and Support for attending meetings from Amgen, Abbvie and Pfizer, unrelated with this work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To investigate the efficacy of bDMARDs in patients with RA with RF/ACPA compared with patients without these autoantibodies., Methods: Previous systematic literature reviews performed by EULAR RA management task forces were searched for qualifying RCTs. RCTs investigating the efficacy of bDMARDs and including both autoantibody-positive (≤80% of total population) and -negative RA patients were eligible. For trials comparing bDMARD+csDMARD vs csDMARD, relative risks (RR) comparing two groups (RF + vs RF-, ACPA+ vs ACPA-) were calculated for efficacy outcomes for each arm. Subsequently, relative risk ratios (RRRs) were computed, as the ratio of RR of the bDMARD-arm and the RR from the non-bDMARD-arm. Pooled effects were obtained with random effect meta-analyses., Results: Data from 28 eligible RCTs were analyzed, pooling 23 studies in three subgroups: 6 including csDMARD-naïve patients, 14 csDMARD-IR, and 3 TNFi-IR patients. In csDMARD-naïve and csDMARD-IR patients, seropositivity was not associated with a better response to bDMARDs: pooled 6-month ACR20 RRRs 1.02 (0.88-1.18) and 1.09 (0.90-1.32), respectively. Other outcomes showed no difference between groups either. In TNFi-IR patients, based on 3 trials, the 6-month ACR20 RRR was 2.28 (1.31-3.95), favoring efficacy in seropositive patients. Other outcomes mostly showed no significant difference between the groups. Based on the mode of action, efficacy was comparable between RF-positive and RF-negative patients for both TNFi and non-TNFi treatment and also for the individual bDMARDs., Conclusion: The effect of bDMARDs is generally comparable in patients with and without RF/ACPA, regardless of the patient population, the mechanism of action or individual drug used., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To determine if there were differences in the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society Health Index (ASAS HI) scores between patients classified as radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) and non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA), and to identify factors associated with higher ASAS HI scores in both disease phenotypes., Methods: This study was an ancillary analysis of the ASAS HI international validation project performed in 23 countries. Patients were included if they were ≥18 years of age and diagnosed with axSpA. Univariable and multivariable analysis were performed to determine if ASAS HI scores differed between the axSpA phenotypes, and to identify other variables associated with ASAS HI scores. We also tested for potential interactions between the axSpA phenotype and significant variables identified through the multivariable regression., Results: A total of 976 patients were included, with 703 having r-axSpA and 273 nr-axSpA. Patients with r-axSpA reported higher (worse) ASAS HI scores compared with those with nr-axSpA (6.8 (4.4) vs 6.0 (4.0), p=0.02), but the axSpA phenotype was not associated with ASAS HI scores in the multivariable regression (β: -0.19, 95% CI: -0.56 to 0.19). Female gender, having worse physical function (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index), disease activity (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score) and anxiety and depressive symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were associated with higher ASAS HI scores. No interactions were found to be significant., Conclusion: Overall health and functioning are similarly affected in patients with r-axSpA and nr-axSpA. Female patients, having worse physical function, disease activity, anxiety and depressive symptoms were independently associated with higher ASAS HI scores., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Bimekizumab (BKZ), a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A, has demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo in patients with non-radiographic (nr-) and radiographic (r-) axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) at Week 16. Here, the objective is to report the efficacy and safety of BKZ at Week 52., Methods: BE MOBILE 1 (nr-axSpA; NCT03928704) and BE MOBILE 2 (r-axSpA; NCT03928743) comprised a 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period, then a 36-week maintenance period. From Week 16, all patients received subcutaneous BKZ 160 mg every 4 weeks., Results: Improvements versus placebo in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society ≥40% response (primary endpoint), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and MRI inflammation of the sacroiliac joints/spine at Week 16 were sustained to Week 52 in BKZ-randomised patients. At Week 52, responses of patients switching from placebo to BKZ at Week 16 were comparable to BKZ-randomised patients. At Week 52, ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 183 (75.0%) and 249 (75.5%) patients with nr-axSpA and r-axSpA, respectively. Serious TEAEs occurred in 9 (3.7%) patients with nr-axSpA and 20 (6.1%) patients with r-axSpA. Oral candidiasis was the most frequent fungal infection (nr-axSpA: 18 (7.4%); r-axSpA: 20 (6.1%)). Uveitis occurred in three (1.2%) and seven (2.1%) patients with nr-axSpA and r-axSpA, and inflammatory bowel disease in two (0.8%) and three (0.9%)., Conclusions: At Week 52, dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F with BKZ resulted in sustained efficacy across the axSpA spectrum; the safety profile was consistent with the known safety of BKZ., Trial Registration Number: NCT03928704; NCT03928743., Competing Interests: Competing interests: XB: Speakers bureau for AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; paid instructor for AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; consultant of AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; grant/research support from Novartis and UCB Pharma. AAD: Speakers bureau for Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer; consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; grant/research support from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. DvdH: Consulting fees from AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB Pharma; director of Imaging Rheumatology BV. MM: Consultancy fees from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; research grants from AbbVie, BMS and UCB Pharma. WPM: Honoraria/consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; research grants from AbbVie, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; educational grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer; Chief Medical Officer for CARE ARTHRITIS. TT: Consultancy fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis and Pfizer; speaker fees from AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis and Pfizer. HX: Speaker for AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; consultant for AbbVie, Beigene, BioMap, IASO, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; clinical investigator for Peking-Tsinghua Center for Life Sciences. UM, CF, AME, TV, JS-S, AM: Employees of UCB Pharma. LSG: Grants from Novartis and UCB Pharma paid to institution; consulting fees from AbbVie, Acelyrin, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The Computed Tomography Syndesmophyte Score (CTSS) was developed as a reliable and sensitive tool to assess syndesmophytes in low-dose CT images of the entire spine in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). The original paper provided sparce examples of the CTSS grades., Objectives: Provide an atlas tailored to assist readers in understanding and employing the CTSS method., Methods: In this paper, illustrations of the different grades and views of the CTSS are presented. CTSS is used to measure bone formation in the spine of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), in the form of syndesmophytes. In both the sagittal and coronal planes, syndesmophytes can be graded from 0 to 3 over 23 vertebral units starting at C2 and ending at S1. The CTSS ranges from 0 (absence of axSpA-related syndesmophytes) to 552 (total ankylosis of the spine)., Results: The current atlas contains low-dose CT images of the spine without lesions (for reference) and all grades of syndesmophytes in different planes used in the CTSS. Examples are arranged per spinal segment (cervical, thoracic and lumbar)., Conclusions: These images can be used to assist any reader in the assessment of syndesmophytes on (low-dose) CT in patients with axSpA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MLM — none. SR: Research Grants — AbbVie, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Consultancy — AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB. DvdH: Consultancy — AbbVie, ArgenX, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB Pharma. Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. MR: Consultancy — ASAS-group. TD: Grants/support — Canon Medical Systems and ASAS-group. Speaker’s bureau — Canon Medical Systems, Novartis, MSD, BioCad, UCB and Roche. Consultancy — Lilly. K-GAH: lecture honoraria — AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. Consultancy — AbbVie. Co-founder of BerlinFlame GmbH. FAvG: Research Grants — Novartis. Consultancy — MSD, AbbVie, Novartis and BMS. MdH: Consultancy and support for attending conferences — UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The objective of this study is to build a structural model visualising and quantifying the interrelationships of different disease outcomes with the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)., Methods: Cross-sectional data collected at month 72 of the Devenir des Spondylarthropathies Indifferénciées Récentes cohort was analysed. Combining prior knowledge and observed data, probabilistic Bayesian network modelling was used to study how the interplay of different disease outcomes affects the ASAS HI, which measures disease-specific overall functioning and health. Disease outcomes comprised, among others, the Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and the Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI)., Results: Data of 384 patients were analysed. The obtained structure suggests that ASAS HI is determined by both patient-reported physical function (BASFI) and disease activity (ASDAS). The parameters of the structural model show that an increase of ASDAS or BASFI by 1 unit corresponds to an increase of ASAS HI by 0.70 or 1.25 units, respectively. Moreover, the model suggests that disease activity has an indirect impact on ASAS HI via BASFI. No relationship between spinal mobility or structural damage and ASAS HI was found., Conclusions: This is the first structural model developed to better understand the construct and the interplay between clinically relevant outcomes related to ASAS HI in axSpA patients. It shows that disease activity and physical function have a strong impact on ASAS HI, confirming it to be a valid construct of overall functioning and health in axSpA patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: Two phase 3, double-blind randomised controlled trials including patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate (contRAst 1) or conventional synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARDs; contRAst 2). Patients received background csDMARDs. Through a testing hierarchy, subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly) was compared with placebo for week 12 endpoints (after which, patients receiving placebo switched to active interventions) or oral tofacitinib (5 mg two times per day) for week 24 endpoints., Primary Endpoint: proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology response ≥20% (ACR20) at week 12., Results: The intention-to-treat populations comprised 1537 (contRAst 1) and 1625 (contRAst 2) patients., Primary Endpoint: proportions of ACR20 responders were statistically significantly greater with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg vs placebo in contRAst 1 (54.7% (p=0.0023) and 50.9% (p=0.0362) vs 41.7%) and contRAst 2 (54.9% (p<0.0001) and 54.5% (p<0.0001) vs 32.5%). Secondary endpoints: in both trials, compared with placebo, otilimab increased the proportion of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) responders (not significant for otilimab 150 mg in contRAst 1), and reduced Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores. Benefits with tofacitinib were consistently greater than with otilimab across multiple endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups., Conclusions: Although otilimab demonstrated superiority to placebo in ACR20, CDAI LDA and HAQ-DI, improved symptoms, and had an acceptable safety profile, it was inferior to tofacitinib., Trial Registration Numbers: NCT03980483, NCT03970837., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RMF has received research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Arthrosi, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galvani, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Priovant, Samsung, Sanofi-Genzyme, Selecta and UCB; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arthrosi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Galapagos, Galvani, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Priovant, Samsung and UCB; has received honoraria from AbbVie, GSK and Pfizer and is an Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Editorial Board Member. DvdH has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, is Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV and is an Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Editorial Board Member. VS has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Alpine, Alumis, Amgen, Aria, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Ermium, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Horizon, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Lilly, Merck, MiMedx, Novartis, Omeros, Pfizer, R-Pharm, RAPT, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, Setpoint, Sorrento, Spherix, Tonix and Urica. TA has accepted research grants and/or honoraria for meetings from AbbVie, Alexion, Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Lilly Japan, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Takeda Pharmaceutical, and UCB Japan. IBM has received consultancy and research support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Causeway, Compugen, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and holds a leadership role in Evelo, University of Glasgow, Versus Arthritis, and is an NHS GGC Board Member and an Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Editorial Board Member. TT received payment or honoraria from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, AstraZeneca K.K., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Janssen K.K, Lilly Japan, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Pfizer Japan and is an Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Editorial Board Member. PCT has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, and research support from Galapagos. MB, DB, JD, CG, AG, SM, CO’S, DS, LAS, CS, JES, MW, RW and SW are employees of GSK and hold GSK stock/shares. MEW receives research support from AbbVie, Aqtual, Bristol Myers Squibb and Lilly, and consultation fees from AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvitas, Genosco, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Horizon, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Rami Therapeutics, R Pharma, Roche, Sanofi, Scipher, Sci Rhom, Set Point and Tremeau. He holds stock/stock options of CanFite, Inmedix, and Scipher., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) require treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to reach remission. It is debated whether tapering of TNFi to discontinuation should be considered in sustained remission. The aim of ARCTIC REWIND TNFi was to assess the effect of tapering TNFi to withdrawal compared with stable treatment on the risk of disease activity flares in patients with RA in remission ≥1 year., Methods: This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at nine Norwegian rheumatology departments. Patients with RA in remission ≥12 months on stable TNFi therapy were allocated by computer-based block-randomisation to tapering to discontinuation of TNFi or stable TNFi. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic co-medication was unchanged. The primary endpoint was disease flare during the 12-month study period (non-inferiority margin 20%), assessed in the per-protocol population., Results: Between June 2013 and January 2019, 99 patients were enrolled and 92 received the allocated treatment strategy. Eighty-four patients were included in the per-protocol population. In the tapering TNFi group, 27/43 (63%) experienced a flare during 12 months, compared with 2/41 (5%) in the stable TNFi group; risk difference (95% CI) 58% (42% to 74%). The tapering strategy was not non-inferior to continued stable treatment. The number of total/serious adverse events was 49/3 in the tapering group, 57/2 in the stable group., Conclusion: In patients with RA in remission for more than 1 year while using TNFi, an increase in flare rate was reported in those who tapered TNFi to discontinuation. However, most regained remission after reinstatement of full-dose treatment., Trial Registration Numbers: EudraCT: 2012-005275-14 and clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01881308., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SL, NPS, JS and EM report grants from The Research Council of Norway and from The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority during the conduct of the study. ABA reports personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. ICO, HF, CS, ÅL, IMH have nothing to disclose. CAH reports personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. GB reports personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from UCB, outside the submitted work. HH reports personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. TU reports personal fees from Galapagos, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from UCB, outside the submitted work. DHS reports that Abbvie donated drugs for a trial, that Amgen donated drugs for a trial, grants from Corrona, grants from Janssen, grants from Pfizer, grants from Roche/Genentech, outside the submitted work. DvdH reports personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Astellas, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Cyxone, personal fees from Daichii, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Galapagos, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from UCB Pharma, outside the submitted work; and is Director Imaging Rheumatology BV. TKK reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Biogen, personal fees from Celltrion, personal fees from Egis, personal fees from Lilly, grants and personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Mylan, personal fees from Hikma, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Oktal, personal fees from Orion Pharma, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sandoz, personal fees from Sanofi, grants and personal fees from UCB, grants from BMS, outside the submitted work. EAH reports grants from The Research Council of Norway, grants from The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from UCB Pharma, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Despite highly effective targeted therapies for rheumatoid arthritis, about 40% of patients respond poorly, and predictive biomarkers for treatment choices are lacking. We did a biopsy-driven trial to compare the response to rituximab, etanercept, and tocilizumab in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis stratified for synovial B cell status., Methods: STRAP and STRAP-EU were two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, stratified, randomised, phase 3 trials done across 26 university centres in the UK and Europe. Biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were included. Following ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy, patients were classified as B cell poor or B cell rich according to synovial B cell signatures and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous rituximab (1000 mg at week 0 and week 2), subcutaneous tocilizumab (162 mg per week), or subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg per week). The primary outcome was the 16-week ACR20 response in the B cell-poor, intention-to-treat population (defined as all randomly assigned patients), with data pooled from the two trials, comparing etanercept and tocilizumab (grouped) versus rituximab. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, 2014-003529-16 (STRAP) and 2017-004079-30 (STRAP-EU)., Findings: Between June 8, 2015, and July 4, 2019, 226 patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (n=73), tocilizumab (n=74), and rituximab (n=79). Three patients (one in each group) were excluded after randomisation because they received parenteral steroids in the 4 weeks before recruitment. 168 (75%) of 223 patients in the intention-to-treat population were women and 170 (76%) were White. In the B cell-poor population, ACR20 response at 16 weeks (primary endpoint) showed no significant differences between etanercept and tocilizumab grouped together and rituximab (46 [60%] of 77 patients vs 26 [59%] of 44; odds ratio 1·02 [95% CI 0·47-2·17], p=0·97). No differences were observed for adverse events, including serious adverse events, which occurred in six (6%) of 102 patients in the rituximab group, nine (6%) of 108 patients in the etanercept group, and three (4%) of 73 patients in the tocilizumab group (p=0·53)., Interpretation: In this biologic-naive population of patients with rheumatoid arthrtitis, the dichotomic classification into synovial B cell poor versus rich did not predict treatment response to B cell depletion with rituximab compared with alternative treatment strategies. However, the lack of response to rituximab in patients with a pauci-immune pathotype and the higher risk of structural damage progression in B cell-rich patients treated with rituximab warrant further investigations into the ability of synovial tissue analyses to inform disease pathogenesis and treatment response., Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Versus Arthritis., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AF reports grants or contracts from Janssen, GSK, Mestag, Nascient, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche, and UCB, and consulting fees from Janssen and Sonoma. AGP reports grants or contracts from GSK, Pfizer, and Gilead, and consulting fees from Inflection Biosciences. CJE reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma; consulting fees from Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly; and support for attending meetings or travel from Eli Lilly. CP reports grants or contracts from GSK, Pfizer, BMS, Sanofi, Novartis, Janssen, Exagen, Genentech, and Navidea; trial funding from the UK Medical Research Council and Versus Arthritis; provision of investigational medicinal products for the trial from Pfizer and Roche; consulting fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Exagen, and Kinikska; and support for attending meetings or travel from EULAR, British Society for Rheumatology, and ACR. DvdH reports consulting fees from GSK, Pfizer, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BMS, UCB Pharma, Novartis, Janssen, Argenx, Bayer, and Takeda; is an associate editor for Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, an editorial board member for the Journal of Rheumatology and RMD Open, an adviser for Axial Spondyloarthritis International Society, and Director of Imaging Rheumatology. EC reports grants or contracts from Pfizer, Biogen, Sanofi, and Bio-Cancer; consulting fees from Gilead, AbbVie, Biogen, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Janssen, Fresenius Kabi, and R-Pharm; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Fresenius Kabi, and Chugai Pharma; support for attending meetings or travel from Galapagos and UCB Pharma. EG reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BMS, Novartis, and Janssen. FR reports consulting fees from Ono Pharmaceutical. HC reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from GSK and UCB Pharma; consulting fees from Pfizer, Galapagos, and Argenx; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca. IM reports grants or contracts from Pfizer, Gilead, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BMS, UCB Pharma, Novartis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Causeway Therapeutics, Cabaletta, Sanofi Regeneron, Evelo, Compugen, and Moonlake, and is a trustee for Versus Arthritis. JG reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, Janssen, and Vifor. JPP reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly; consulting fees from AbbVie; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie and Eli Lilly; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie. MRE reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from GSK, Galapagos, and AbbVie; support for attending meetings or travel from Eli Lilly, AbbVie, and Janssen; and consulting fees from GSK, Fresenius Kabi, and AstraZeneca. MHB reports grants or contracts from Gilead, and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Galapagos, AbbVie, and Boehringer Ingelheim. NN reports support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen. PD reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly, and support for attending meetings or travel from Galapagos, AbbVie, and Fresenius Kabi. PCT reports consulting fees from GSK, Pfizer, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Biogen, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Janssen, Fresenius Kabi, and Nordic Pharma; grants or contracts from Galapagos; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie; support for attending meetings or travel from Eli Lilly; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Moonlake, Kymab, and Immunovant. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To demonstrate the value of diagnosing axSpA, by comparing health and costs associated with available diagnostic algorithms and perfect diagnosis., Methods: Using data from SPACE and other cohorts, a model was developed to estimate health (quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) and costs (healthcare consumption and work productivity losses) of different diagnostic algorithms for axSpA amongst patients with low back pain referred to a rheumatologist, over a 60-year horizon. The model combined a decision-tree (diagnosis) with a state-transition model (treatment). The three algorithms (Berlin [BER, highest specificity], Modification 1 [M1; less strict inflammatory back pain (IBP) criterion] and Modification 2 [M2; IBP not mandatory as entry criterion, highest sensitivity]) were compared. Changes in sensitivity/specificity were explored and the value of perfect diagnosis was investigated., Results: For each correctly diagnosed axSpA patient, up to 4.7 QALYs and €60,000 could be gained/saved, considering a societal perspective. Algorithm M2 resulted in more health and lower costs per patient (24.23 QALYs; €157,469), compared to BER (23.96 QALYs; €159,423) and M1 (24.15 QALYs; €158,417). Hypothetical improvements in M2 sensitivity resulted in slightly more value compared to improvements in specificity. Perfect diagnosis can cost €7,500 per patient and still provide enough value., Conclusion: Correct diagnosis of axSpA results in substantial health and cost benefits for patients and society. Not requiring IBP as mandatory for diagnosis of axSpA (algorithm M2) provides more value and would be preferable. A considerably more expensive diagnostic algorithm with better accuracy than M2 would still be considered good value for money., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest CW has nothing to disclose. SG has nothing to disclose. AvT reports grants from Pfizer, UCB; grants and consulting fees from Novartis; consulting fees from Galapagos; outside the submitted work and paid to the institution. FvG reports grants from Pfizer, Reuma Nederland, Stichting Vrienden van Sole Mio, Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS); consulting fees from MSD, Novartis, UCB, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, BMS; and is member of ASAS Executive Committee and ASAS treasurer (unpaid); outside the submitted work. DvdH reports personal fees from AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB Pharma, outside the submitted work; and is Associate editor of Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Editorial board member of Journal of Rheumatology and RMD Open, advisor of ASAS and Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. MJ has nothing to disclose. AB reports grants from Abbvie; consulting fees or honoraria from UCB, Galapagos, Abbvie, Pfizer, Novartis; outside the submitted work and paid to the institution., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in the phase III SELECT-AXIS programs. We report the 1-year efficacy and safety in patients with AS and an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR) from the SELECT-AXIS 2 study., Methods: Patients ≥ 18 years with active AS who met the modified New York criteria for AS and were bDMARD-IR received double-blind upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (QD) or placebo for 14 weeks. Patients who completed 14 weeks could enter an open-label extension and receive upadacitinib 15 mg QD for up to 2 years. Efficacy endpoints included the percentage of patients achieving ≥ 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society response (ASAS40), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) low disease activity (LDA), and ASDAS inactive disease (ID); and change from baseline in total and nocturnal back pain, and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI). Subgroup analyses (bDMARD lack of efficacy versus intolerance, and prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor [TNFi] versus interleukin-17 inhibitor [IL-17i] exposure) were conducted. Binary and continuous efficacy endpoints were assessed using non-responder imputation with multiple imputation (NRI-MI) and as observed (AO) analyses; and mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) and AO, respectively. Safety was assessed based on adverse events. Data through week 52 are reported., Results: Of 420 randomized patients, 366 (continuous upadacitinib: n = 181; placebo to upadacitinib: n = 185) completed 52 weeks of treatment. At week 52, in the continuous upadacitinib and placebo to upadacitinib groups, ASAS40, ASDAS LDA, and ASDAS ID were achieved by 66% and 65%, 57% and 55%, and 26% and 25% (all NRI-MI); and change from baseline in total back pain, nocturnal back pain, and BASFI was -4.5 and -4.3, -4.6 and -4.4, and -3.6 and -3.5 (all MMRM), respectively. No new safety risks were identified. Subgroup analyses were consistent with the overall study population., Conclusions: Upadacitinib 15 mg QD demonstrated sustained improvement up to 52 weeks in bDMARD-IR patients with AS. Efficacy was generally similar in patients with lack of efficacy versus intolerance to bDMARDs and prior TNFi versus IL-17i exposure., Trial Registration: NCT02049138., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: SR received research grants from AbbVie, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, UCB and Sanofi. EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly and holds research grants from Pfizer and Lilly. AS has received speaker/consulting fees from Abbvie, Lilly, UCB and Novartis. AO has nothing to declareCasper Webers has nothing to declare. XB, received consulting fees and research grants from Abbvie, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB. XB is an Editorial Board member of Annals of Rheumatic Diseases.Robert Landewé received consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Jansen, Galapagos, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and is Director of Rheumatology Consultancy BV. DvdH, received consulting fees from AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma and is Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv.

Objectives: To investigate whether meticulously following a treat-to-target (T2T)-strategy in daily clinical practice will lead to less radiographic progression in patients with active RA who start (new) DMARD-therapy., Methods: Patients with RA from 10 countries starting/changing conventional synthetic or biologic DMARDs because of active RA, and in whom treatment intensification according to the T2T principle was pursued, were assessed for disease activity every 3 months for 2 years (RA-BIODAM cohort). The primary outcome was the change in Sharp-van der Heijde (SvdH) score, assessed every 6 months. Per 3-month interval DAS44-T2T could be followed zero, one or two times (in a total of two visits). The relation between T2T intensity and change in SvdH-score was modelled by generalized estimating equations., Results: In total, 511 patients were included [mean (s.d.) age: 56 (13) years; 76% female]. Mean 2-year SvdH progression was 2.2 (4.1) units (median: 1 unit). A stricter application of T2T in a 3-month interval did not reduce progression in the same 6-month interval [parameter estimates (for yes vs no): +0.15 units (95% CI: -0.04, 0.33) for 2 vs 0 visits; and +0.08 units (-0.06; 0.22) for 1 vs 0 visits] nor did it reduce progression in the subsequent 6-month interval., Conclusions: In this daily practice cohort, following T2T principles more meticulously did not result in less radiographic progression than a somewhat more lenient attitude towards T2T. One possible interpretation of these results is that the intention to apply T2T already suffices and that a more stringent approach does not further improve outcome., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To assess whether the presence of bone marrow edema (BME) leads to the development of structural lesions at the same anatomical location of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ), and to investigate the association between BME patterns over time and structural lesions in patients with early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)., Methods: Patients with axSpA from the DESIR cohort with ≥2 consecutive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-SIJ were assessed at baseline, 2 and 5 years. MRI-SIJ images were divided into 8 quadrants. The association between BME and subsequent structural lesions (sclerosis, erosions, fatty lesions, and ankylosis) on MRI in the same quadrant was tested longitudinally. Additionally, patients were grouped according to the pattern of BME evolution across quadrants over time (no BME, sporadic, fluctuating, and persistent). The association between these patterns and 5-year imaging outcomes (eg: ≥5 erosions and/or fatty lesions on MRI-SIJ) was tested., Results: In total, 196 patients were included. BME in each quadrant was associated with sclerosis (OR:1.9 (95%CI: 1.1;3.4)), erosions (1.9 (1.5;2.5)) and fatty lesions (1.9 (1.4;2.6)). Ankylosis was uncommon. There was a gradient between increased level of inflammation and subsequent damage: compared to the 'no BME' pattern, the sporadic (OR (95% CI): 2.1 (1.0;4.5)), fluctuating (OR:5.6(2.2;14.4)) and persistent (OR:7.5(2.8;19.6)) patterns were associated with higher structural damage on MRI-SIJ at 5-years., Conclusions: In early axSpA, inflammation on MRI-SIJ leads to damage at the quadrant level. The higher the exposure to inflammation across quadrants in the SIJs over time the higher the likelihood of subsequent structural damage, suggesting a cumulative effect., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To report safety and efficacy of ixekizumab (IXE) from the COAST program at 3 years, including 1 year from the originating studies (COAST-V, COAST-W, and COAST-X), and 2 years from COAST-Y., Methods: In COAST-Y, patients continued with the dose received at the end of the originating study at week 52: 80 mg IXE either every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 2 weeks (Q2W). Placebo-treated patients from COAST-X received IXE Q4W in COAST-Y. Starting at week 116 (week 64 of COAST-Y), patients receiving IXE Q4W could be escalated to Q2W. Safety for patients receiving ≥ 1 dose of IXE and efficacy for patients receiving ≥ 1 dose of IXE Q4W was assessed. Data are summarized as observed., Results: For the 932 patients who received ≥ 1 dose of IXE (Q2W or Q4W) through 3 years, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred at an incidence rate (IR) of 38.0 per 100 patient-years (PYs). The most frequently reported were infections (IR 25.7 per 100 PYs) and injection site reactions (IR 7.4 per 100 PYs); the majority of TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. In total, 7.1% of TEAEs led to discontinuation (IR 3.1 per 100 PYs). All patient groups receiving IXE Q4W assessed through 3 years saw sustained improvements in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, clinically important improvement, and other efficacy end points., Conclusion: The 3-year safety profile of IXE in the COAST program is consistent with the previously established long-term safety profile. IXE Q4W provided sustained improvement of disease activity in patients who received treatment through 3 years. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02696785 [COAST-V], NCT02696798 [COAST-W], NCT02757352 [COAST-X], and NCT03129100 [COAST-Y])., (Copyright © 2023 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Background: Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway., Methods: A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document., Results: The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring., Conclusions: The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DA: Grants or contracts from any entity: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, SoBi and Sanofi; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sandoz; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: AbbVie, Gilead, Sandoz, Pfizer, BMSAK: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis and PfizerKK: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Boehringer Ingelheim, UCB Pharma and AbbVie; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: AbbVie, Gilead, Sandoz, Pfizer and BMSJI: Grants or contracts from any entity: Pfizer, GSK and Janssen; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Gilead and BMS; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Gilead and Roche; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Eli Lilly and Gilead; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Eli Lilly; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: Versus Arthritis Board member (unpaid) NS: Grants or contracts from any entity: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis and Roche Diagnostics; Consulting fees: Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer and SanofiMV: Grants or contracts from any entity: PfizerBC: Grants or contracts from any entity: Pfizer, Roche, Chugai and Novartis; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Celltrion, Janssen, Gilead-Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche-Chugai; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead-Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer and Roche-ChugaiNB: All support for the present manuscript: Vienna Medical Academy; Consulting fees: Amgen, EULAR, Galapagos, Global Alliance for Patient Access, Grunenthal, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Sanofi; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: EULAR and Global Alliance for Patient Access; Receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services: GalapagosJB: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Eli Lilly and Galapagos; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: SyneosGRB: All support for the present manuscript: Sanofi; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche and SanofiVPB: Grants or contracts from any entity: NIH (NIAID/NIAMS), The Cedar Hill Foundation, Amgen and BMS; Consulting fees: Amgen, BMS, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: KAI for NIHRC: noneEC: Grants or contracts from any entity: Bio-Cancer, Biogen, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biocon, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Chugai Pharma, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi and RPharm; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, RPharm and Sanofi; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie and Eli LillyMT: Grants or contracts from any entity: Albireo, Cymabay, Falk, Gilead, Intercept, MSD, Takeda, Alnylam and Ultragenyx; Consulting fees: Albireo, BioMX, Boehringer Ingelheim, Falk, Genfit, Intercept, Janssen, MSD, Gilead, Novartis, Shire, Phenex and Regulus; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Falk Foundation, Gilead, Intercept and MSD; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: AbbVie, Falk, Gilead and Intercept; Patents planned, issued or pending: Co-Inventor patent on medical use of nor-UDCATS: Grants or contracts from any entity: AbbVie and Roche; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and NovartisCC: Grants or contracts from any entity: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma and Pfizer; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: Romanian Society of Rheumatology, Romanian Registry of Rheumatic Diseases and Romanian League against RheumatismMKC: Grants or contracts from any entity: Gilead; Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, BMS, GSK and Shannon Pharmaceuticals; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AstraZeneca and Gilead; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: Arthritis Foundation, New York Chapter; Stock or stock options: Johnson and Johnson, Regeneron and AmgenMD: All support for the present manuscript: Medical academy of Vienna; Grants or contracts from any entity: Roche, Sanofi, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BMS, Merck, Galapagos and UCB; Consulting fees: Roche, Sanofi, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BMS, Merck, Galapagos and UCB; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Roche, Sanofi, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BMS, Merck, Galapagos and UCBGP: none. DvdH: Consulting fees: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; Other financial or non-financial interests: Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv.PE: Grants or contracts from any entity: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Samsung; Consulting fees: Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Gilead, Eli Lilly and Novartis; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Abbvie, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly and NovartisEM: All support for the present manuscript: University of Vienna funding; Grants or contracts from any entity: Roche, Jansen, Pfizer, AbbVie and Novartis; Consulting fees: GSK, Roche, Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer, Janssen, Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: GSK, Pfizer, AbbVie, Lilly, Amgen, Janssen and AstraZeneca; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: GSKRF: Consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Gilead, Pfizer, Novartis and Eli Lilly; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie and Pfizer; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and GSKCG: noneKH: Grants or contracts from any entity: Pfizer and BMS; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbViePAM: Grants or contracts from any entity: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boeringher-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ChemoCentryx, Eicos, Forbius, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, InflaRx, Sanofi and Takeda; Royalties or licenses: UpToDate; Consulting fees: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boeringher-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ChemoCentryx, CSL Behring, Dynacure, EMDSerono, Forbius, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Immagene, InflaRx, Jannsen, Kiniksa, Kyverna, Magenta, MiroBio, Mitsubishi, Neutrolis, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sparrow, Takeda and TalarisTT: Grants or contracts from any entity: Chugai Pharmaceutical; Consulting fees: Chugai, Janssen and Rpharma; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Chugai, BMS, Janssen and SanofiXM: Consulting fees: BMS, Novartis, Galapagos, Sanofi, GSK, Pfizer, Janssen and UCBKW: Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS and Pfizer; Consulting fees: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lily, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, GSK, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Regeneron and SanofiMdW: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Pfizer, Celgene, Eli Lilly and UCBKP: Payments for lectures: Roche, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, SOBI, UCB and MSD; Advisory Board: Roche, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, SOBI, UCB and MSDPN: Grants or contracts from any entity: Roche, Abbvie, Pfizer, Janssen, Gilead/Galapagos, BMS, Novartis and Eli Lilly; Consulting fees: Abbvie, Pfizer, janssen, BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Roche and Gilead/Galapagos; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Abbvie, Pfizer, janssen, BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Roche and Gilead/GalapagosYT: Grants or contracts from any entity: Asahi-Kasei, Abbvie, Chugai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Eisai, Takeda, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Kowa and Behringer-Ingelheim; Consulting fees: Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Taisho, Ayumi, Sanofi, GSK and Abbvie; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Gilead, AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Amgen, YL Biologics, Eisai, Astellas, Bristol-Myers and AstraZenecaCD: Grants or contracts from any entity: FWF Austria and Celgene; Consulting fees: AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Galapagos; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Galapagos; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Galapagos; Receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services: MSDMLH: Grants or contracts from any entity: Novartis, Roche and Sandoz; Consulting fees: BMS and Samsung Bioepis; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: MSD, AbbVie, Novartis, Merck, Eli Lilly, Medac and Sandoz; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: The DANBIO registry; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: CellTrion and Eli Lilly; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: Chair of the DANBIO steering committee, Member of the Danish Rheumatism Association’s Board, Member of the Danish Rheumatism Association’s research council, Member of EULAR Quality of Care Committee, Co-chair of the EuroSpA collaboration; Receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services: Study drug for the NORD-STAR study/ Abatacept and Certolizumab pegolHSK: Consulting fees: Roche, Chugai and Sanofi-Aventis; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Roche, Chugai and Sanofi-Aventis; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Roche, Chugai and Sanofi-AventisMN: Grants or contracts from any entity: Pfizer, Amgen, Galapagos and AbbVie; Consulting fees: AbbVie; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Celgene and AbbVie; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: AbbVieAS: Grants or contracts from any entity: oint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Viatris, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCBAL: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, MSD, Alfasigma, Celltrion, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis and SOBIAR: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Angelini, Pfizer, Novartis, Reckitt Benckiser and SOBI; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: President, Pediatric Rheumatology European Society (PReS)ARR: Consulting fees: Sanofi, Roche, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, BMS and Novartis; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, BMS, Gilead, Roche, Novartis and Janssen; Payment for expert testimony: AbbVie, Novartis and Gilead; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: AbbVie and Sanofi; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: RPharmIM: Grants or contracts from any entity: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Amgen and Novartis; Consulting fees: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novartis, Gilead, Amgen, UCB, GSK and Moonlake; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: Vice Principal & Head of MVLS College/University of Glasgow, Board Member/ NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde and Evelo; Stock or stock options: Causeway Therapeutics, Compugen, Cabaletta and EveloBio; JS: grants to his institution from Abbvie, Astro, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche; Expert advice for, or had symposia speaking engagements with, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO Pharma, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, R-Pharm, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi and UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To investigate the effect of pharmacological treatment of SpA on depressive symptoms and explore whether this effect differs between drug classes., Methods: Data from the observational Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society Health Index Validation Study were used. Patients were assessed at baseline and after initiation of NSAIDs/conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs)/TNF inhibitors (TNFis). Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale depression subscale [HADS-D; 0-21 (best-worst)]. Covariables included demographics and disease characteristics, including disease activity [Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS)/BASDAI]. The change in HADS-D from baseline was compared between treatments (NSAIDs/csDMARDs/TNFis) with analysis of variance and multivariable regression analysis., Results: A total of 304 patients were included; 102/45/157 initiated NSAIDs/csDMARDs/TNFis and 260 (85%) / 44 (15%) had axial/peripheral SpA. At baseline, the mean HADS-D was 6.9 (s.d. 4.2); 126 (42%) were possibly depressed (HADS-D ≥8) and 66 (22%) were probably depressed (HADS-D ≥11). At follow-up, depressive symptoms significantly improved in all treatment groups. In multivariable regression without disease activity measures, initiating TNFis compared with NSAIDs was associated with greater improvement in depressive symptoms [β = -1.27 (95% CI -2.23, -0.32)] and lower odds of possible depression at follow-up [odds ratio 0.47 (95% CI 0.23, 0.94)]. This association was attenuated after additional adjustment for disease activity (ASDAS/BASDAI) but not CRP. csDMARDs did not differ from NSAIDs regarding their effect on HADS-D. Between-drug class results were confirmed in axial SpA (axSpA), although less clear in peripheral SpA., Conclusion: Treatment of active SpA also improves depressive symptoms. Especially in axSpA, TNFis have a greater effect than NSAIDs, which is mainly explained by a stronger effect on disease activity. We found no evidence for a direct link between CRP-mediated inflammation and depressive symptoms in SpA., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objective: To assess test-retest reliability, construct validity, known groups discrimination, and responsiveness of the Assessment of the SpondyloArthritis international Society Health Index (ASAS HI) to evaluate functioning, disability, and health in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA)., Methods: Data were generated from 2 randomized, placebo-controlled, active-controlled phase III ixekizumab studies (COAST-V, N = 341; COAST-W, N = 316). Assessments included the following: test-retest reliability (ie, intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] between ASAS HI scores at screening and baseline), construct validity (ie, Spearman correlation with standard r-axSpA outcome measures), known groups discrimination (ie, 1-way ANOVA comparing the ASAS HI with different disease activity categories, measured by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS]), and responsiveness (ie, Spearman correlation between changes in the ASAS HI and changes in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI], the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI], the ASDAS, and the Patient Global Assessment [PtGA] as well as ANOVA comparing changes in the ASAS HI with various responder categories)., Results: The ICC for test-retest reliability was 0.78 for COAST-V and 0.76 for COAST-W, indicating adequate agreement. Moderate-to-large correlations ( r = 0.40-0.61) were observed between the ASAS HI and the BASDAI. Statistically significant differences (all P < 0.001) between mean ASAS HI scores were observed for subgroups based on ASDAS-defined disease activity categories at baseline and week 16. Moderate-to-large correlations existed between changes in the ASAS HI and the BASFI, BASDAI, ASDAS, and PtGA from baseline to week 16. The ASAS HI differentiated statistically ( P < 0.001) between ASAS, BASDAI, and ASDAS response groups., Conclusion: The ASAS HI demonstrated reliability, construct validity, known groups discrimination, and responsiveness in adults with r-axSpA in 2 clinical trials., (Copyright © 2023 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: The alternative ASDAS (altASDAS) is an index that can be used when patient global assessment is unavailable. Our aim was to test the truth and discrimination aspects according to OMERACT filter 2.0 of the altASDAS in an external cohort., Methods: Cohorts from the COAST trials of ixekizumab (COAST-V, -W, -X; 16-week primary endpoint) enrolling radiographic/non-radiographic axial SpA patients were pooled. The ASDAS [original formula with patient global assessment (PGA)] and altASDAS were calculated. Truth was assessed by agreement with the continuous ASDAS [intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)] and ASDAS disease activity (DA) states (weighted κ), Bland-Altman plots [mean difference (MD) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA)] and Pearson's correlations between altASDAS/ASDAS and other constructs. Discrimination was tested by the ability of altASDAS to distinguish high/low DA according to nocturnal pain >6/10 as an external anchor and agreement (κ) with ASDAS in major improvement (MI) and clinically important improvement (CII)., Results: A total of 958 patients were included. For truth, agreement with ASDAS was very good (ICC = 0.99, κ = 0.91), MD with ASDAS was 0.03 (95% LoA -0.31-0.24) and correlation coefficients of altASDAS with related constructs were within a prespecified 0.3-wide band around those between ASDAS and the same construct. For discrimination, the altASDAS discriminated between DA states and agreed with ASDAS response (κ MI = 0.91, CII = 0.93)., Conclusions: The altASDAS was truthful and discriminative in an external cohort and as such has been fully validated to be used in cases when PGA is unavailable., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To define the instruments for the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology (ASAS-OMERACT) core domain set for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)., Methods: An international working group representing key stakeholders selected the core outcome instruments following a predefined process: (1) identifying candidate instruments using a systematic literature review; (2) reducing the list of candidate instruments by the working group, (3) assessing the instruments' psychometric properties following OMERACT filter 2.2, (4) selection of the core instruments by the working group and (5) voting and endorsement by ASAS., Results: The updated core set for axSpA includes seven instruments for the domains that are mandatory for all trials: Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score and Numerical Rate Scale (NRS) patient global assessment of disease activity, NRS total back pain, average NRS of duration and severity of morning stiffness, NRS fatigue, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Function Index and ASAS Health Index. There are 9 additional instruments considered mandatory for disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) trials: MRI activity Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) sacroiliac joints and SPARCC spine, uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis assessed as recommended by ASAS, 44 swollen joint count, Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score, dactylitis count and modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score. The imaging outcomes are considered mandatory to be included in at least one trial for a drug tested for properties of DMARD. Furthermore, 11 additional instruments were also endorsed by ASAS, which can be used in axSpA trials on top of the core instruments., Conclusions: The selection of the instruments for the ASAS-OMERACT core domain set completes the update of the core outcome set for axSpA, which should be used in all trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: VN-C: grants/honoraria from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. ABoonen: grants from AbbVie ad Novartis and honoraria for boards or lectures form Abbvie, Galapagos and Lilly. PJM: research grants, consultation fees and/or speaker honoraria from Abbvie, Aclaris, Amgen, Bristol Myers, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Inmagene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma and UCB. MD: consulting fees Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi and UCB Pharma. UK: grant and research support and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. RBML: honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; Director of Rheumatology Consultancy BV. XB: consulting fees AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. WB-M: research speaker's fees from Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and Biopas. PC: research grants/honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Zuellig Pharma and Janssen. LF: employee and shareholder of Pfizer. MG-C: research collaboration with and provides services to Novartis Pharma AG. LG: research grants/honoraria from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. BKE: consultancy, research grants and speaker's fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eva, Hekma, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, New Bridge, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi‐Aventis and Servier. NH: consultant for Amgen, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. PMM: consulting/speaker’s fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this manuscript. WM: consulting fees Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB; research and/or educational grants from Abbvie, Novartis and Pfizer; Chief Medical Officer CARE Arthritis Limited. AM: speaker honoraria for lectures, presentations from Abbvie, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, BMS, Biogen and Lilly. NdP: employee of UCB Pharma. DP: research support from AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer, consulting fees from AbbVie, Biocad, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis and UCB and speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. MP: speaker honoraria for lectures, presentations from Novartis and UCB. SR: research grants from Galapagos, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB and Sanofi. I-HS: employee of AbbVie, Immunology Clinical Development, USA. DvdH: consulting fees AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. ABoel, HD, YHK and SvW: no competing interests to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Radiographic progression and course of inflammation over 2 years in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) from the phase 3, randomized, PREVENT study are reported here., Methods: In the PREVENT study, adult patients fulfilling the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society classification criteria for nr-axSpA with elevated CRP and/or MRI inflammation received secukinumab 150 mg or placebo. All patients received open-label secukinumab from week 52 onward. Sacroiliac (SI) joint and spinal radiographs were scored using the modified New York (mNY) grading (total sacroiliitis score; range, 0-8) and modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS; range, 0-72), respectively. SI joint bone marrow edema (BME) was assessed using the Berlin Active Inflammatory Lesions Scoring (0-24) and spinal MRI using the Berlin modification of the AS spine MRI (ASspiMRI) scoring (0-69)., Results: Overall, 78.9% (438/555) of patients completed week 104 of the study. Over 2 years, minimal changes were observed in total radiographic SI joint scores (mean [SD] change, - 0.04 [0.49] and 0.04 [0.36]) and mSASSS scores (0.04 [0.47] and 0.07 [0.36]) in the secukinumab and placebo-secukinumab groups. Most of the patients showed no structural progression (increase ≤ smallest detectable change) in SI joint score (87.7% and 85.6%) and mSASSS score (97.5% and 97.1%) in the secukinumab and placebo-secukinumab groups. Only 3.3% (n = 7) and 2.9% (n = 3) of patients in the secukinumab and placebo-secukinumab groups, respectively, who were mNY-negative at baseline were scored as mNY-positive at week 104. Overall, 1.7% and 3.4% of patients with no syndesmophytes at baseline in the secukinumab and placebo-secukinumab group, respectively, developed ≥ 1 new syndesmophyte over 2 years. Reduction in SI joint BME observed at week 16 with secukinumab (mean [SD], - 1.23 [2.81] vs - 0.37 [1.90] with placebo) was sustained through week 104 (- 1.73 [3.49]). Spinal inflammation on MRI was low at baseline (mean score, 0.82 and 1.07 in the secukinumab and placebo groups, respectively) and remained low (mean score, 0.56 at week 104)., Conclusion: Structural damage was low at baseline and most patients showed no radiographic progression in SI joints and spine over 2 years in the secukinumab and placebo-secukinumab groups. Secukinumab reduced SI joint inflammation, which was sustained over 2 years., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02696031., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: To develop prediction models for individual patient harm and benefit outcomes in elderly patients with RA and comorbidities treated with chronic low-dose glucocorticoid therapy or placebo., Methods: In the Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in Rheumatoid Arthritis (GLORIA) study, 451 RA patients ≥65 years of age were randomized to 2 years 5 mg/day prednisolone or placebo. Eight prediction models were developed from the dataset in a stepwise procedure based on prior knowledge. The first set of four models disregarded study treatment and examined general predictive factors. The second set of four models was similar but examined the additional role of low-dose prednisolone. In each set, two models focused on harm [the occurrence of one or more adverse events of special interest (AESIs) and the number of AESIs per year) and two on benefit (early clinical response/disease activity and a lack of joint damage progression). Linear and logistic multivariable regression methods with backward selection were used to develop the models. The final models were assessed and internally validated with bootstrapping techniques., Results: A few variables were slightly predictive for one of the outcomes in the models, but none were of immediate clinical value. The quality of the prediction models was sufficient and the performance was low to moderate (explained variance 12-15%, area under the curve 0.67-0.69)., Conclusion: Baseline factors are not helpful in selecting elderly RA patients for treatment with low-dose prednisolone given their low power to predict the chance of benefit or harm., Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02585258., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objective: To summarize evidence on the relationship between early treatment (definition based on symptom/disease duration or radiographic damage) and treatment clinical response in patients with SpA., Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in studies on SpA patients treated with NSAIDs or biological/targeted synthetic DMARDs addressing the impact of symptom/disease duration or presence of radiographic damage on treatment response assessed by any disease activity outcome. For categorical outcomes, relative risk, relative risk ratio and number needed to treat were calculated, and for continuous outcomes, differences in differences, to compare groups stratified based on symptom/disease duration or the presence of radiographic damage., Results: From the 8769 articles retrieved, 25 were included and 2 added by hand-search, all in axial SpA (axSpA), most of them with low risk of bias. Twenty-one studies compared groups based on symptom duration (n = 6) or disease duration (n = 15) and seven studies based on absence/presence of radiographic damage (two studies used two comparisons). When early axSpA was defined by symptom duration (<5 years) in randomized controlled trials, early treatment was associated with better outcomes in patients with non-radiographic axSpA [n = 2, ASAS40 relative risk ratio 5.24 (95% CI 1.12, 24.41) and 1.52 (0.60, 3.87)] but not in radiographic axSpA (n = 1) [ASAS20 0.96 (0.53-1.73)]. When early axSpA was defined based on disease duration or radiographic damage, no differences were found between groups., Conclusion: Evidence towards better outcomes in early axSpA is very limited and restricted to non-radiographic axSpA and <5 years symptom duration. When early axSpA is defined based on disease duration or radiographic damage, no differences in response to treatment are found., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a complex disease with diverse manifestations, for which new treatment options are warranted. BE MOBILE 1 (non-radiographic (nr)-axSpA) and BE MOBILE 2 (radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA)) are double-blind, phase 3 trials designed to evaluate efficacy and safety of bimekizumab, a novel dual interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor, across the axSpA spectrum., Methods: In parallel 52-week trials, patients with active disease were randomised 1:1 (nr-axSpA) or 2:1 (r-axSpA) to bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks:placebo. From week 16, all patients received bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks. Primary (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society ≥40% improvement (ASAS40)) and secondary endpoints were assessed at week 16. Here, efficacy and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported up to week 24., Results: 254 patients with nr-axSpA and 332 with r-axSpA were randomised. At week 16, primary (ASAS40, nr-axSpA: 47.7% bimekizumab vs 21.4% placebo; r-axSpA: 44.8% vs 22.5%; p<0.001) and all ranked secondary endpoints were met in both trials. ASAS40 responses were similar across TNFi-naïve and TNFi-inadequate responder patients. Improvements were observed in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) states and objective measures of inflammation, including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and MRI of the sacroiliac joints and spine. Most frequent TEAEs with bimekizumab (>3%) included nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, pharyngitis, diarrhoea, headache and oral candidiasis. More fungal infections (all localised) were observed with bimekizumab vs placebo; no major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or active tuberculosis were reported. Incidence of uveitis and adjudicated inflammatory bowel disease was low., Conclusions: Dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F with bimekizumab resulted in significant and rapid improvements in efficacy outcomes vs placebo and was well tolerated in patients with nr-axSpA and r-axSpA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DvdH: Consulting fees from AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, and is the director of Imaging Rheumatology BV; AD: Speaker for Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer; consultant of AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; grant/research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; XB: Speaker for AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; paid instructor for AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; MAB: Grant/research support from UCB; Consultant for Clementia, Grey Wolf Therapeutics, Incyte, Ipsen, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Xinthera; Speaker for Novartis; HD: Speaker for BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma; MD: Consultant for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; DE: Consultancy and speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis and UCB Pharma; KG: Consultant of AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; grant/research support from AbbVie, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; speakers bureau from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma; LSG: Consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; grant/research support from Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; NH: Consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and UCB Pharma; MM: Consultancy fees from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, and research grants from AbbVie, BMS and UCB Pharma; WPM: Honoraria/consulting fees from AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; research grants from AbbVie, Pfizer; educational grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer; Chief Medical Officer for CARE Arthritis; DP: Speaker for AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; Consultant for AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB Pharma; Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer; MR: Speakers bureau from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma; consultant of AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma; TT: Consultancy fees: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis, and Pfizer; Speaker fees: AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, and Pfizer; FVdB: Consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; Speakers bureau fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; HX: Speaker for AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; Consultant for AbbVie, Beigene, BioMap, IASO, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; Clinical investigator for Peking-Tsinghua Center for Life Sciences; AM, UM, MO, CF, TV, AME, JSS: Employees of UCB Pharma., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)