ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2024
Treatment decisions in axial spondyloarthritis daily clinical practice are more than treat-to-target.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Which ASDAS cut-off corresponds best to treatment intensification in patients with axial spondyloarthritis in daily practice? A prospective study from a clinical registry.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to treat-to-target in axial spondyloarthritis in clinical practice: a mixed methods study.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Factors associated with treatment intensification in patients with axial spondyloarthritis and high disease activity in clinical practice.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- [Assessment of residual symptoms in patients with axial spondyloarthritis with low disease activity and analysis of its related factors].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objective'Treat-to-target principles' are advised for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), although a clear target is not yet defined and targets do not always reflect inflammation. Treat-to-target use and motives for treatment choices in clinics are unknown. Therefore, we studied the presence of residual disease activity according physician's opinion, patient's opinion and composite indices and compared them to the subsequent treatment decisions.
methodsThis cross-sectional multicentre study included 249 patients with a clinical diagnosis of axSpA ≥6 months. Remission and low disease activity according to the BASDAI (<1.9 and <3.5, respectively) and physician's and patient's opinion were assessed. Questionnaires included patient-reported outcomes and patients and physicians completed questions regarding treatment decisions.
resultsA total of 115/249 (46%) patients were in remission according to the physician and 37% (n = 43) of these patients reached remission according to the BASDAI. In 51/83 (60%) of the patients with residual disease activity according to the physician and a BASDAI >3.5 the treatment was left unchanged, either because of low disease activity as rated by the physician [n = 15 (29%)] or because of a combination of low disease activity with non-inflammatory complaints or comorbidities [n = 11 (25%)]. Retrospective treat-to-target evaluations showed that treatments were most frequently intensified in patients with arthritis or inflammatory back pain and less often in patients with other (non-inflammatory) musculoskeletal comorbidities.
conclusionThis study shows that physicians do not always strictly apply treat-to-target in case of residual disease activity in axSpA. Usually, they accept low disease activity as satisfactory.
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.