Objective: To update evidence‐based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).Methods: We conducted updated systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat‐to‐target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel.Results: Recommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co‐administration of low‐dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat‐to‐target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended.Conclusion: These recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA.

Objective: To update evidence‐based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).Methods: We conducted updated systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat‐to‐target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel.Results: Recommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co‐administration of low‐dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat‐to‐target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended.Conclusion: These recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA.

Objective: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in hospitalized patients, particularly those with autoimmune disorders. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was analyzed to determine trends in the rate of hospitalization, mortality from VTE, epidemiology, and outcomes in hospitalized patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to assess its impact.Methods: The 2003‐2011 NIS database of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project was queried to identify all adults (age 18 years and older) hospitalized with SLE and VTE. Demographic characteristics and in‐hospital outcomes of this population were compared with those of patients with SLE without a VTE diagnosis. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to obtain the adjusted odds ratio (OR).Results: The total number of hospitalized patients with SLE was 299 595, of whom 9175 (3.06%) had VTE. After adjusting for potential confounders, compared with those without VTE, patients with SLE and VTE had significantly higher inpatient mortality (5% vs. 2.0%; OR 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.10‐2.62]; P < 0.001), greater disability at discharge (34% vs. 26%; OR 1.53 [95% CI 1.46‐1.62]; P < 0.001), a longer length of stay (LOS) by 3.57 days, and higher cost of hospitalization by $25 400. In this database, patients with SLE and VTE were younger and of male sex. Also, African American race and a higher number of comorbidities were associated with an increased risk of VTE in patients with SLE.Conclusion: VTE in hospitalized patients with SLE is associated with significantly higher inpatient mortality, greater disability at discharge, an increased LOS, and higher cost of hospitalization. This cross‐sectional study helps with quantifying the risk of VTE in hospitalized patients with SLE and provides information on the immense human and material cost this complication leads to. These data can be very useful in the development and implementation of appropriate prophylactic strategies in the high‐risk population with SLE.

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes during the implementation of a self-administered patient decision-aid (PtDA) for lupus. Methods: We provided an effective computerized lupus PtDA in 15 rheumatology outpatient clinics 2019–2024 (including the COVID pandemic). We undertook Organizational Readiness to Implement Change Surveys (ORICs) and Team Learning and Psychological Safety Surveys (TLPSSs) at baseline. The primary study outcome objective measure, percent penetration/reach, was defined as the number of patients who viewed the lupus PtDA at the end of the study, divided by the total number of eligible patients (times 100). We used validated clinical personnel surveys to examine the perceived lupus PtDA appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, success, and permanence, at 4 months, 12 months and 24 months post-PtDA implementation. Results: Among the sites, the clinical personnels’ (n = 184) baseline ORIC commitment and efficacy scores (a 0–5 scale, higher = better) ranged from 3.5 to 4.2, and 3.4 to 4.4, respectively; the TLPSS scores (a 0–7 scale, higher = better) were 3.9–5.5 for internal learning, 3.7–5.6 for external learning, and 4.3–5.5 for psychological safety. The penetration (primary outcome) among 15 geographically diverse US rheumatology clinics ranged from 3% to 44%. We found that the total number of providers in the clinic was positively associated with higher penetration. Clinical personnel–perceived lupus PtDA outcomes were optimal at 4 months (all scale scores ranged from 1 to 5, higher = better): (i) appropriateness, 3.43 (s.d. 0.86); (ii) acceptability, 3.53 (s.d. 0.83); (iii) feasibility, 3.44 (s.d. 0.71); (iv) success, 3.41 (s.d. 0.73); and (v) permanence, 3.22 (s.d. 0.74). Conclusion: We implemented a lupus PtDA with varied success rates during the COVID pandemic; more providers were associated with higher clinic penetration. Clinical personnel perceived high lupus PtDA appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, success, and permanence that persisted up to 24 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03735238.