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.

Objectives To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and efficacy of innovator infliximab (INX) and CT-P13, a biosimilar to INX, in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods Phase 1 randomised, double-blind, multicentre, multinational, parallel-group study. Patients were randomised to receive 5 mg/kg of CT-P13 (n=125) or INX (n=125). Primary endpoints were area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) at steady state and observed maximum steady state serum concentration (C_max,ss) between weeks 22 and 30. Additional PK, efficacy endpoints, including 20% and 40% improvement response according to Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis International Working Group criteria (ASAS20 and ASAS40), and safety outcomes were also assessed. Results Geometric mean AUC was 32 765.8 μgh/ml for CT-P13 and 31 359.3 μgh/ml for INX. Geometric mean C_max,ss was 147.0 μg/ml for CT-P13 and 144.8 μg/ml for INX. The ratio of geometric means was 104.5% (90% CI 94% to 116%) for AUC and 101.5% (90% CI 95% to 109%) for C_max,ss. ASAS20 and ASAS40 responses at week 30 were 70.5% and 51.8% for CT-P13 and 72.4% and 47.4% for INX, respectively. In the CT-P13 and INX groups more than one adverse event occurred in 64.8% and 63.9% of patients, infusion reactions occurred in 3.9% and 4.9%, active tuberculosis occurred in 1.6% and 0.8%, and 27.4% and 22.5% of patients tested positive for anti-drug antibodies, respectively. Conclusions The PK profiles of CT-P13 and INX were equivalent in patients with active AS. CT-P13 was well tolerated, with an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of INX up to week 30.

Phthalates are associated with a variety of health outcomes, but sources that may be targeted for exposure reduction messaging remain elusive. Diet is considered a significant exposure pathway for these compounds. Therefore, we sought to identify primary foods associated with increased exposure through a review of the food monitoring survey and epidemiological data. A search in PubMed and Google Scholar for keywords "phthalates" and "diet" "food" "food stuffs" "dietary intake" "food intake" and "food concentration" resulted in 17 studies measuring phthalate concentrations in United States (US) and international foods, three epidemiological association studies, and three interventions. We report on food groups with high (≥300 μg/kg) and low (<50 μg/kg) concentrations and compare these to foods associated with phthalate body burden. Based on these data, we estimated daily intakes of di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) of US women of reproductive age, adolescents and infants for typical consumption patterns as well as healthy and poor diets. We consistently observed high DEHP concentrations in poultry, cooking oils and cream-based dairy products (≥300 μg/kg) across food monitoring studies. Diethyl phthalate (DEP) levels were found at low concentrations across all food groups. In line with these data, epidemiological studies showed positive associations between consumption of meats, discretionary fat and dairy products and DEHP. In contrast to food monitoring data, DEP was found to be associated with intake of vegetables in two studies. DEHP exposure estimates based on typical diets were 5.7, 8.1, and 42.1 μg/kg-day for women of reproductive age, adolescents and infants, respectively, with dairy as the largest contributor to exposure. Diets high in meat and dairy consumption resulted in two-fold increases in exposure. Estimates for infants based on a typical diet exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s reference dose of 20 μg/kg-day while diets high in dairy and meat consumed by adolescents also exceeded this threshold. The review of the literature demonstrated that DEHP in some meats, fats and dairy products is consistently found in high concentrations and can contribute to exposure. Guidance on future research in this area is provided that may help to identify methods to reduce dietary phthalate exposures.

Summary: Humans are exposed to a large number of environmental chemicals: Some of these may be toxic, and many others have unknown or poorly characterized health effects. There is intense interest in determining the impact of exposure to environmental chemical mixtures on human health. As the study of mixtures continues to evolve in the field of environmental epidemiology, it is imperative that we understand the methodologic challenges of this research and the types of questions we can address using epidemiological data. In this article, we summarize some of the unique challenges in exposure assessment, statistical methods, and methodology that epidemiologists face in addressing chemical mixtures. We propose three broad questions that epidemiological studies can address: a) What are the potential health impacts of individual chemical agents? b) What is the interaction among agents? And c) what are the health effects of cumulative exposure to multiple agents? As the field of mixtures research grows, we can use these three questions as a basis for defining our research questions and for developing methods that will help us better understand the effect of chemical exposures on human disease and well-being.