ReviewRheumatology international2017
Should axial spondyloarthritis without radiographic changes be treated with anti-TNF agents?
Review in Rheumatology international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Fifty-Two-Week, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Certolizumab Pegol in Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2019Trial
- How Has Molecular Biology Enhanced Our Undertaking of axSpA and Its Management.Current rheumatology reports · 2023Review
- [Epionics SPINE-use of an objective method to examine spinal mobility in patients with axial spondyloarthritis].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2020Article
- Loss and gain of bone in spondyloarthritis: what drives these opposing clinical features?Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2020Review
- Characterization of adherence and persistence profile in a real-life population of patients treated with adalimumab.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A spectrum of disease extends beyond the rigid confines of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) encompasses non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) in individuals without established radiographic changes but with other clinical/imaging axSpA features and AS in those with definite sacroiliac joint changes on pelvic X-rays. A broad consensus about the management of nr-axSpA is emerging among clinicians, but the evidence base remains open to question. To explore whether nr-axSpA and AS should be treated similarly, we examined the literature on their prevalence, natural history, disease burden, and treatment. There is strong evidence that nr-axSpA and AS are expressions of the same disease. Approximately 10% of patients with nr-axSpA will develop radiographic disease over 2 years; after >20 years, the figure may exceed 80%. Nr-axSpA patients have lower CRP and less spinal inflammation on MRI than AS patients but similar disease activity, pain, and quality-of-life impairment. Most patients with nr-axSpA manage well with conservative treatment, but a minority has severe disabling symptoms. Anti-TNF therapy has demonstrated similar efficacy and safety in nr-axSpA and AS. Current evidence does not clearly indicate that anti-TNF treatment can inhibit or limit bony progression of AS, the basis of conservative and anti-TNF treatment is control of symptoms and function. For some patients with nr-axSpA, the need for powerful treatments is as great as in some with AS; thus, treatment of axSpA should be consistent across the axSpA spectrum with anti-TNF agents being available, irrespective of radiographic change, according to the same criteria as those applied to AS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.