Search

Objective: To determine if the efficacy of biologics differ based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and C-reactive protein (CRP) findings., Methods: We compared four subgroups (MRI+/CRP+, MRI+/CRP-, MRI-/CRP+, MRI-/CRP-) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A comprehensive database search was performed to include axial spondylarthritis (axSpA; both radiographic axSpA [r-axSpA] and nonradiographic axSpA [nr-axSpA]) RCTs with treatment efficacy reported by different MRI and CRP subgroups. Study-specific disease activity scores (at 12-16 weeks) were pooled using a random-effects model and compared between the four subgroups., Results: Five trials (all nr-axSpA) were included: three with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi, N = 729) and two with interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, N = 794). TNFi and IL-17i showed efficacy based on the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society 40 (ASAS40) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index 50 (BASDAI50) in all MRI and CRP subgroups, except the CRP-/MRI- subgroup, which had a single study with only 39 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the four subgroups in terms of patients achieving ASAS40 (P = 0.60, I 2 = 0%) or BASDAI50 (P = 0.27, I 2 = 23.9%). The number needed to treat was three for the CRP+/MRI+ and CRP+/MRI- subgroups and six for the CRP-/MRI+ and CRP-/MRI- subgroups. All trials had a low risk of bias. Between-study heterogeneity was low to moderate. Sensitivity analyses comparing TNFi or IL-17i versus placebo similarly showed no difference between subgroups in terms of ASAS40 (TNFi, P = 0.57; IL-17i, P = 0.28) and BASDAI50 (TNFi, P = 0.37; IL-17i, P = 0.18)., Conclusion: In this systematic review, there was no statistically significant difference between the four subgroups in terms of efficacy based on ASAS40 or BASDAI50., (© 2023 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Introduction: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are the most common therapies used in AS, however, the associated long-term cardiovascular risk is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the association of therapies used for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) such as NSAIDs and TNFi on cardiovascular events (CVE) in AS., Methods: A comprehensive search was performed from database inception to May 29, 2020 to include controlled studies of AS treated with NSAIDs, oral small molecules, or biologics reporting CVE. Study-specific risk ratios (RR) were pooled using a random effects model., Results: Nine non-randomized studies from 1570 studies screened fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among NSAID users as a whole versus no NSAIDs, no increased risk of CVE (composite outcome) was observed; however, the risk of cerebrovascular accident was significantly lower (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.93, I 2  = 66%). Cox-2 inhibitor use was associated with reduced risk of all CVE (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.70, I 2  = 0%). Non-selective NSAIDs were not associated with any increased/decreased risk of any CVE. Meta-analysis of three studies of MI did not show a significant association with TNFi (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.57-1.35, I 2  = 76%)., Conclusions: In this meta-analysis of non-randomized studies, NSAID users as a whole and users of non-selective NSAIDs did not seem to have a higher risk of any CVE. Limited data suggest a lower risk of composite CVE outcome with Cox-2 inhibitors, unlike the increased risk reported in the general population. No significant association between TNFi and MI was observed. The certainty in evidence was very low due to all studies being observational. More studies are needed to study the association between TNFi use and CVE in general to evaluate a possible protective role in AS.

Systematic inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), are associated with an increased risk of malignancies. However, the pathogenesis of spondyloarthritis (SpA), which includes both ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, is different from RA, and the risk of malignancy and sites involved may also be different. It is important to better understand associations of SpA with site-specific cancers to facilitate appropriate cancer screening. The goal of this review was to examine the association of SpA with malignancy and the potential impact of therapy for SpA on development of malignancy., Competing Interests: Disclosure A. Ogdie has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer and has received grants from Novartis and Pfizer to Penn and from Amgen to Forward., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To investigate the effect of therapies on radiographic progression in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA)., Methods: A comprehensive database search for studies assessing radiographic progression in axial SpA (particular treatment versus no treatment of interest) was performed. Study-specific standardized mean differences in treatment outcomes at 2 and ≥4 years were estimated and combined using random-effects models., Results: Twenty-four studies in patients with axial SpA were identified, of which 18 involved tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), 8 involved nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and 1 involved secukinumab. Spinal radiographic progression, as measured by the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS), was not significantly different between TNFi-treated and biologics-naive patients at 2 years (mSASSS difference -0.73 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1.52, 0.12], I 2 = 28%) and ≥4 years (mSASSS difference -2.03 [95% CI -4.63, 0.72], I 2 = 63%). Sensitivity analyses restricted to studies with a low risk of bias showed a significant difference in spinal radiographic progression between TNFi-treated and biologics-naive patients at ≥4 years (mSASSS difference -2.17 [95% CI -4.19, -0.15]). No significant difference in spinal radiographic progression was observed between NSAID-treated and control patients (mSASSS difference -0.30 [95% CI -2.62, 1.31], I 2 = 71%) or between secukinumab-treated and biologics-naive patients (mSASSS difference -0.34 [95% CI -0.85, 0.17]). With regard to treatment differences in patients with nonradiographic axial SpA or in patients with radiographic progression measured using the sacroiliac joint score, an insufficient number of studies were available for analysis., Conclusion: Although no significant protective effect of TNFi treatment on spinal radiographic progression was seen over the course of 2 years or ≥4 years in patients with axial SpA, our analysis restricted to studies with a low risk of bias showed a protective effect of TNFi after ≥4 years. Therefore, long-term TNFi exposure might confer beneficial effects on spinal radiographic progression in axial SpA. No difference in radiographic progression at 2 years was seen in either the NSAID or secukinumab treatment groups compared to their controls. Future studies should explore the effects of biologic treatment on radiographic progression, as well as the effects of long-term biologics exposure, in patients with early axial SpA or those with nonradiographic axial SpA., (© 2020, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of manual compression (MC) with vascular hemostasis devices (VHD) in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CA) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) through femoral artery access., Introduction: The use of femoral artery access for coronary procedures may result in access-related complications, prolonged immobility and discomfort for the patients. MC results in longer time-to-hemostasis (TTH) and time-to-ambulation (TTA) compared to VHDs but its role in access-related complications remains unclear in patients undergoing coronary procedures., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and relevant references for English language randomized controlled trials (RCT) from inception through September 30, 2016. We performed the meta-analysis using random effects model. The outcomes were time-to-hemostasis, time-to-ambulation, major bleeding, large hematoma >5cm, pseudoaneurysm and other adverse events., Results: The electronic database search resulted in a total of 44 RCTs with a total of 18,802 patients for analysis. MC, compared to VHD resulted in longer TTH [mean difference (MD): 11.21min; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.13-14.29; P<0.00001] and TTA [standardized mean difference: 1.2 (0.79-1.62); P<0.00001] along with excess risk of hematoma >5cm formation [risk ratio (RR): 1.38 (1.15-1.67); P=0.0008]. MC resulted in similar risk of major bleeding [1.01 (0.64-1.60); P=0.95] pseudoaneurysm [0.99 (0.75-1.29); P=0.92], infections [0.52 (0.25-1.10); P=0.09], need of surgery [0.60 (0.29-1.22); P=0.16), AV fistula [0.93 (0.68-1.27); P=0.63] and ipsilateral leg ischemia [0.95 (0.57-1.60); P=0.86] compared to VHD., Conclusion: Manual compression increase time-to-hemostasis, time-to-ambulation and risk of hematoma formation compared vascular hemostasis devices., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)