Objective: To validate and refine two sets of candidate criteria for the classification/diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Methods: All Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) members were invited to include consecutively new patients with chronic (⩾3 months) back pain of unknown origin that began before 45 years of age. The candidate criteria were first tested in the entire cohort of 649 patients from 25 centres, and then refined in a random selection of 40% of cases and thereafter validated in the remaining 60%. Results: Upon diagnostic work-up, axial SpA was diagnosed in 60.2% of the cohort. Of these, 70% did not fulfil modified New York criteria and, therefore, were classified as having “non-radiographic” axial SpA. Refinement of the candidate criteria resulted in new ASAS classification criteria that are defined as: the presence of sacroiliitis by radiography or by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus at least one SpA feature (“imaging arm”) or the presence of HLA-B27 plus at least two SpA features (“clinical arm”). The sensitivity and specificity of the entire set of the new criteria were 82.9% and 84.4%, and for the imaging arm alone 66.2% and 97.3%, respectively. The specificity of the new criteria was much better than that of the European Spondylarthropathy Study Group criteria modified for MRI (sensitivity 85.1%, specificity 65.1%) and slightly better than that of the modified Amor criteria (sensitivity 82.9, specificity 77.5%). Conclusion: The new ASAS classification criteria for axial SpA can reliably classify patients for clinical studies and may help rheumatologists in clinical practice in diagnosing axial SpA in those with chronic back pain. Trial registration number: NCT00328068.

Objective: Non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is characterised by a lack of definitive radiographic sacroiliitis and is considered an early stage of ankylosing spondylitis. The objective of this study was to develop candidate classification criteria for axial SpA that include patients with but also without radiographic sacroiliitis. Methods: Seventy-one patients with possible axial SpA, most of whom were lacking definite radiographic sacroiliitis, were reviewed as “paper patients” by 20 experts from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS). Unequivocally classifiable patients were identified based on the aggregate expert opinion in conjunction with the expert-reported level of certainty of their judgement. Draft criteria for axial SpA were formulated and tested using classifiable patients. Results: Active sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (odds ratio 45, 95% CI 5.3 to 383; p<0.001) was strongly associated with the classification of axial SpA. The knowledge of MRI findings led to a change in the classification of 21.1% of patients. According to the first set of candidate criteria (sensitivity 97.1%; specificity 94.7%) a patient with chronic back pain is classified as axial SpA in the presence of sacroiliitis by MRI or x rays in conjunction with one SpA feature or, if sacroilitiis is absent, in the presence of at least three SpA features. In a second set of candidate criteria, inflammatory back pain is obligatory in the clinical arm (sensitivity 86.1%; specificity 94.7%). Conclusion: The ASAS group has developed candidate criteria for the classification of axial SpA that include patients without radiographic sacroiliitis. The candidate criteria need to be validated in an independent international study.

This first update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations on the management of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is based on the original paper, a systematic review of existing recommendations and the literature since 2005 and the discussion and agreement among 21 international experts, 2 patients and 2 physiotherapists in a meeting in February 2010. Each original bullet point was discussed in detail and reworded if necessary. Decisions on new recommendations were made — if necessary after voting. The strength of the recommendations (SOR) was scored on an 11-point numerical rating scale after the meeting by email. These recommendations apply to patients of all ages that fulfill the modified NY criteria for AS, independent of extra-articular manifestations, and they take into account all drug and non-drug interventions related to AS. Four overarching principles were introduced, implying that one bullet has been moved to this section. There are now 11 bullet points including 2 new ones, one related to extra-articular manifestations and one to changes in the disease course. With a mean score of 9.1 (range 8-10) the SOR was generally very good.

Objective: Inflammatory back pain (IBP) is an important clinical symptom in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), and relevant for classification and diagnosis. In the present report, a new approach for the development of IBP classification criteria is discussed. Methods: Rheumatologists (n = 13) who are experts in SpA took part in a 2-day international workshop to investigate 20 patients with back pain and possible SpA. Each expert documented the presence/absence of clinical parameters typical for IBP, and judged whether IBP was considered present or absent based on the received information. This expert judgement was used as the dependent variable in a logistic regression analysis in order to identify those individual IBP parameters that contributed best to a diagnosis of IBP. The new set of IBP criteria was validated in a separate cohort of patients (n = 648). Results: Five parameters best explained IBP according to the experts. These were: (1) improvement with exercise (odds ratio (OR) 23.1); (2) pain at night (OR 20.4); (3) insidious onset (OR 12.7); (4) age at onset <40 years (OR 9.9); and (5) no improvement with rest (OR 7.7). If at least four out of these five parameters were fulfilled, the criteria had a sensitivity of 77.0% and specificity of 91.7% in the patients participating in the workshop, and 79.6% and 72.4%, respectively, in the validation cohort. Conclusion: This new approach with real patients defines a set of IBP definition criteria using overall expert judgement on IBP as the gold standard. The IBP experts’ criteria are robust, easy to apply and have good face validity.

Background Therapeutic targets have been defined for diseases like diabetes, hypertension or rheumatoid arthritis and adhering to them has improved outcomes. Such targets are just emerging for spondyloarthritis (SpA). Objective To define the treatment target for SpA including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and develop recommendations for achieving the target, including a treat-to-target management strategy. Methods Based on results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of expert physicians and patients developed recommendations which were broadly discussed and voted upon in a Delphi-like process. Level of evidence, grade and strength of the recommendations were derived by respective means. The commonalities between axial SpA, peripheral SpA and PsA were discussed in detail. Results Although the literature review did not reveal trials comparing a treat-to-target approach with another or no strategy, it provided indirect evidence regarding an optimised approach to therapy that facilitated the development of recommendations. The group agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations; 9 of these recommendations related commonly to the whole spectrum of SpA and PsA, and only 2 were designed separately for axial SpA, peripheral SpA and PsA. The main treatment target, which should be based on a shared decision with the patient, was defined as remission, with the alternative target of low disease activity. Follow-up examinations at regular intervals that depend on the patient's status should safeguard the evolution of disease activity towards the targeted goal. Additional recommendations relate to extra-articular and extramusculoskeletal aspects and other important factors, such as comorbidity. While the level of evidence was generally quite low, the mean strength of recommendation was 9–10 (10: maximum agreement) for all recommendations. A research agenda was formulated. Conclusions The task force defined the treatment target as remission or, alternatively, low disease activity, being aware that the evidence base is not strong and needs to be expanded by future research. These recommendations can inform the various stakeholders about expert opinion that aims for reaching optimal outcomes of SpA.