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.

Objectives To update the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods Following the EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, two systematic literature reviews were conducted on non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment of axSpA. In a task force meeting, the evidence was presented, discussed, and overarching principles and recommendations were updated, followed by voting. Results Five overarching principles and 15 recommendations with a focus on personalised medicine were agreed: eight remained unchanged from the previous recommendations; three with minor edits on nomenclature; two with relevant updates (#9, 12); two newly formulated (#10, 11). The first five recommendations focus on treatment target and monitoring, non-pharmacological management and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-choice pharmacological treatment. Recommendations 6–8 deal with analgesics and discourage long-term glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for pure axial involvement. Recommendation 9 describes the indication of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs, that is, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i)) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs, ie, Janus kinase inhibitors) for patients who have Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score ≥2.1 and failed ≥2 NSAIDs and also have either elevated C reactive protein, MRI inflammation of sacroiliac joints or radiographic sacroiliitis. Current practice is to start a TNFi or IL-17i. Recommendation 10 addresses extramusculoskeletal manifestations with TNF monoclonal antibodies preferred for recurrent uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease, and IL-17i for significant psoriasis. Treatment failure should prompt re-evaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities (#11). If active axSpA is confirmed, switching to another b/tsDMARD is recommended (#12). Tapering, rather than immediate discontinuation of a bDMARD, can be considered in patients in sustained remission (#13). The last recommendations (#14, 15) deal with surgery and spinal fractures. Conclusions The 2022 ASAS-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA.

Objectives To analyse the impact of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) on spinal radiographic progression in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods Patients with AS in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort with up to 10 years of follow-up and radiographic assessments every 2 years were included. Radiographs were scored by two readers according to the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS) with known chronology. The relationship between TNFi use before a 2-year radiographic interval and progression within the interval was investigated using binomial generalised estimating equation models with adjustment for potential confounding and multiple imputation of missing values. Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) was regarded as mediating the effect of TNFi on progression and added to the model in a sensitivity analysis. Results A total of 432 patients with AS contributed to data for 616 radiographic intervals. Radiographic progression was defined as an increase in ≥2 mSASSS units in 2 years. Mean (SD) mSASSS increase was 0.9 (2.6) units in 2 years. Prior use of TNFi reduced the odds of progression by 50% (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.88) in the multivariable analysis. While no direct effect of TNFi on progression was present in an analysis including time-varying ASDAS (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.08), the indirect effect, via a reduction in ASDAS, was statistically significant (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97). Conclusion TNFis are associated with a reduction of spinal radiographic progression in patients with AS. This effect seems mediated through the inhibiting effect of TNFi on disease activity.

Objective: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom the response to anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti‐TNF) therapy is inadequate have several therapeutic options, such as switching to an alternative anti‐TNF agent or initiating B cell–depleting therapy with rituximab (RTX). Although both therapeutic options have been proven effective in trials, no head‐to‐head comparisons are available. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of RTX with that of an alternative anti‐TNF agent in the management of patients with RA who had an inadequate response to anti‐TNF therapy.Methods: This prospective cohort study was nested within the Swiss Clinical Quality Management RA cohort and included all patients who had an inadequate response to at least 1 anti‐TNF agent and subsequently received either 1 cycle of RTX or an alternative anti‐TNF agent. The primary outcome was the evolution of RA disease activity (as measured on the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28]), which was analyzed using multivariate regression models for longitudinal data.Results: One hundred sixteen patients with RA were included; 50 patients received 1 cycle of RTX, and 66 patients were treated with a second or a third alternative anti‐TNF agent. At baseline, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in age, sex, disease duration, and disease activity. Evolution of the DAS28 was more favorable in the group that received RTX compared with the group that received an alternative anti‐TNF agent (P = 0.01). At 6 months, the mean decrease in the DAS28 was −1.61 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] −1.97, −1.25) among patients receiving RTX and −0.98 (95% CI −1.33, −0.62) among those receiving subsequent anti‐TNF therapy.Conclusion: The results of this observational study suggest that treatment with RTX may be more effective than switching to an alternative anti‐TNF agent in patients with RA in whom active disease persists despite anti‐TNF therapy.