To update and integrate the recommendations for ankylosing spondylitis and the recommendations for the use of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) into one set applicable to the full spectrum of patients with axSpA. Following the latest version of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Standardised Operating Procedures, two systematic literature reviews first collected the evidence regarding all treatment options (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) that were published since 2009. After a discussion of the results in the steering group and presentation to the task force, overarching principles and recommendations were formulated, and consensus was obtained by informal voting. A total of 5 overarching principles and 13 recommendations were agreed on. The first three recommendations deal with personalised medicine including treatment target and monitoring. Recommendation 4 covers non-pharmacological management. Recommendation 5 describes the central role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-choice drug treatment. Recommendations 6–8 define the rather modest role of analgesics, and disprove glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for axSpA patents with predominant axial involvement. Recommendation 9 refers to biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) including TNFi and IL-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) for patients with high disease activity despite the use (or intolerance/contraindication) of at least two NSAIDs. In addition, they should either have an elevated C reactive protein and/or definite inflammation on MRI and/or radiographic evidence of sacroiliitis. Current practice is to start with a TNFi. Switching to another TNFi or an IL-17i is recommended in case TNFi fails (recommendation 10). Tapering, but not stopping a bDMARD, can be considered in patients in sustained remission (recommendation 11). The final two recommendations (12, 13) deal with surgery and spinal fractures. The 2016 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA.

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.

Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of etanercept in a multicenter, randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind trial of adults with moderate to severe active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).Methods: Patients (n = 277) were treated with either etanercept 25 mg (n = 138) or placebo (n = 139) subcutaneously twice weekly for 24 weeks. The primary outcome measures were the percentages of patients achieving the Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis 20% response (ASAS20) at weeks 12 and 24. Other outcome measures included the percentage of patients achieving higher ASAS responses, and the safety of etanercept in patients with AS. All outcome measures were assessed at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks.Results: Treatment with etanercept resulted in dramatic improvement. The ASAS20 was achieved by 59% of patients in the etanercept group and by 28% of patients in the placebo group (P < 0.0001) at week 12, and by 57% and 22% of patients, respectively, at week 24 (P < 0.0001). All individual ASAS components, acute‐phase reactant levels, and spinal mobility measures were also significantly improved. The safety profile of etanercept was similar to that reported in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. The only adverse events that occurred significantly more often in the etanercept group were injection‐site reactions, accidental injuries, and upper respiratory tract infections.Conclusion: Etanercept is a highly effective and well tolerated treatment in patients with active AS.