OBJECTIVE: To assess available management strategies in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) using a systematic approach, as a part of the development of evidence based recommendations for the management of AS. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify relevant interventions for the management of AS. Evidence for each intervention was categorised by study type, and outcome data for efficacy, adverse effects, and cost effectiveness were abstracted. The effect size, rate ratio, number needed to treat, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio were calculated for each intervention where possible. Results from randomised controlled trials were pooled where appropriate. RESULTS: Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions considered to be of interest to clinicians involved in the management of AS were identified. Good evidence (level Ib) exists supporting the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and coxibs for symptomatic treatment. Non-pharmacological treatments are also supported for maintaining function in AS. The use of conventional antirheumatoid arthritis drugs is not well supported by high level research evidence. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab and etanercept) have level Ib evidence supporting large treatment effects for spinal pain and function in AS over at least 6 months. Level IV evidence supports surgical interventions in specific patients. CONCLUSION: This extensive literature review forms the evidence base considered in the development of the new ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of AS.
OBJECTIVE: To assess available management strategies in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) using a systematic approach, as a part of the development of evidence based recommendations for the management of AS. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify relevant interventions for the management of AS. Evidence for each intervention was categorised by study type, and outcome data for efficacy, adverse effects, and cost effectiveness were abstracted. The effect size, rate ratio, number needed to treat, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio were calculated for each intervention where possible. Results from randomised controlled trials were pooled where appropriate. RESULTS: Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions considered to be of interest to clinicians involved in the management of AS were identified. Good evidence (level Ib) exists supporting the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and coxibs for symptomatic treatment. Non-pharmacological treatments are also supported for maintaining function in AS. The use of conventional antirheumatoid arthritis drugs is not well supported by high level research evidence. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab and etanercept) have level Ib evidence supporting large treatment effects for spinal pain and function in AS over at least 6 months. Level IV evidence supports surgical interventions in specific patients. CONCLUSION: This extensive literature review forms the evidence base considered in the development of the new ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of AS.
Authors: J Braun; J Zochling; E Märker-Hermann; G Stucki; H Böhm; M Rudwaleit; H Zeidler; J Sieper Journal: Z Rheumatol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 1.372
Authors: J Zochling; D van der Heijde; R Burgos-Vargas; E Collantes; J C Davis; B Dijkmans; M Dougados; P Géher; R D Inman; M A Khan; T K Kvien; M Leirisalo-Repo; I Olivieri; K Pavelka; J Sieper; G Stucki; R D Sturrock; S van der Linden; D Wendling; H Böhm; B J van Royen; J Braun Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2005-08-26 Impact factor: 19.103