Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie

, Volume 65, Issue 8, pp 728–742 | Cite as

Empfehlungen für das Management der ankylosierenden Spondylitis gemäß ASAS/EULAR

Evaluation im deutschsprachigen Raum
  • J. Braun
  • J. Zochling
  • E. Märker-Hermann
  • G. Stucki
  • H. Böhm
  • M. Rudwaleit
  • H. Zeidler
  • J. Sieper
Originalien

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Adaptierung und Implementierung der von der „ASsessments in AS (ASAS) International Working Group“ zusammen mit der „European League against Rheumatism“ (EULAR, die europäische Rheumatologenvereinigung) entwickelten evidenzbasierten Empfehlungen für das Management der ankylosierenden Spondylitis (AS) im Rahmen des Kompetenznetzwerks (KNW) Rheumatologie im deutschsprachigen Raum.

Methoden: In dem ASAS/EULAR-Projekt wurden die Wirkstärke („effect size“, ES), die „rate ratio“ (RR), die Anzahl der zu behandelnden Patienten („number needed to treat“, NNT) und die „incremental cost-effectiveness ratio“ (ICER, das Verhältnis der Änderung der Kosten zur Änderung der Wirksamkeit) berechnet. Die Stärke der Empfehlungen wurde durch die Evidenzlevel der Literatursuche, durch den „risk-benefit trade-off“ (die Risiko-Nutzen-Bewertung) und die klinische Erfahrung der Experten ermittelt. Die Empfehlungen wurden kürzlich in englischer Sprache publiziert.

Alle am Schwerpunkt Spondyloarthritis (SpA) des KNW beteiligten Zentren und 35 weitere Experten erhielten das englische Manuskript zugesandt. Alle 35 Teilnehmer wurden aufgefordert, die 10 Hauptempfehlungen für das Management von AS quantitativ (Übereinstimmung 0–10-Skala) zu bewerten.

Ergebnisse: Die Empfehlungen umfassen den Einsatz von Medikamenten wie nichtsteroidale Antiphlogistika (NSAR), was neben konventionellen NSAR auch Coxibe und den parallelen Einsatz von Gastroprotektiva, so genannte krankheitsmodulierende Präparate „disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs“, DMARDs), Biologika, einfache Analgetika, lokal und systemische Glukokortikoide, nichtpharmakologische Therapien (wie Patientenschulung, medizinische Trainingstherapie und Physiotherapie) sowie chirurgische Behandlungsmaßnahmen einschließt. Darüber hinaus wurden 3 generelle Empfehlungen ausgesprochen und ein Behandlungsschema unter Berücksichtigung der verschiedenen klinischen Manifestationen erstellt. Die Stärke der ASAS/EULAR-Empfehlungen war insgesamt ausgeprägt. Die Übereinstimmung der deutschsprachigen Experten mit dem internationalen Vorschlag fiel sehr deutlich aus: im Mittel 9,13, mit relativ geringer Variabilität zwischen den Empfehlungen.

Zusammenfassung: Zehn Schlüsselempfehlungen für die Behandlung der AS wurden entwickelt, die durch systematische Literaturrecherche gestützt und durch Expertenkonsensus bekräftigt wurden. Eine große Gruppe deutschsprachiger Experten stimmt mit dem Vorschlag weitgehend überein. Dies kann als Ausgangspunkt für eine weitere Disseminierung und Implementierung dienen.

Schlüsselworter

Ankylosierende Spondylitis Management Empfehlungen Evidenzbasierte-Medizin 

Recommendations for the management of ankylosing spodylitis after ASAS/EULAR: evaluation in the German language area

Abstract

Aim: Our aim was to adapt and implement the evidence based recommendations for the management of ankylosing spodylitis (AS) of the “Assessments in AS” (ASAS) International Working Group together with the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) within the framework of a competence network (CN) in rheumatology in the German language area.

Methods: The ASAS/EULAR project calculated the effective size (ES), rate ratio, number of patients requiring treatment (number needed to treat, NNT) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The strength of the recommendations was determined through the evidence level found in the literature, the risk-benefit trade-off and the clinical experience of the experts. The recommendations were recently published in English.

All of the centers taking part in the study area Spondyloarthritis (SpA) CN, as well as an additional 35 experts, were sent the English manuscript. All 35 participants were asked to evaluate the ten main management recommendations on a scale from 0 to 10.

Results: The recommendations encompass the use of drugs such as non-steroid anti-inflammatories (NSAR), which, along with conventional NSAR include coxibs and the parallel application of gastroprotectives, so called disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, biologicals, simple analgesics, local and systematic glucocorticoids, non-drug therapies (such as patient training, medical training therapy and physiotherapy), in addition to surgical treatment methods. Moreover, three general recommendations were formulated and a therapy scheme created, taking into consideration the various clinical manifestations. The strength of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations was generally high. There was a marked consensus between the German speaking experts and the international proposal: a mean of 9.13 with relatively low variation between the recommendations.

Summary: Ten key recommendations for the treatment of AS were developed. These were strengthened by a systematic search of the literature and by expert consensus. The large group of German speaking experts were largely in agreement with the proposal. This can be seen as a starting point for the dissemination and implementation of the recommendations.

Keywords

Ankylosing spodylitis Management Recommendations Evidence based medicine 

Notes

Danksagung

Wir bedanken uns bei den folgenden deutschsprachigen Experten für Ihre Bewertung und die konstruktiven Kommentare:

PD Dr. Brandt, Berlin; Dr. Droste, Bad Kreuznach; Dr.Edelmann, Bad Aibling; Dr. Ehlebracht-König, Bad Eilsen; Dr. Engel, Bad Liebenwerda; Prof. Falkenbach, Bad Ischl; Prof. Genth, Aachen; Prof. Grifka, Bad Abbach; Prof. Hammer, Sendenhorst; Dr. Hermann, Graz/Österreich; Dr. Karberg, Berlin; Prof. Kellner, München; Dr. Krause, Gladbeck; Prof. Krüger, München; Prof. Kuipers, Bremen; Prof. Lakomek, Minden; PD Dr. Langer, Düsseldorf; Prof. Manger, Erlangen; Prof. Märker-Hermann, Wiesbaden; Prof. Mau, Halle; Prof. Michel, Zürich/Schweiz; Dr. Miehle, Bad Aibling; Prof. Oestensen, Bern/Schweiz; Prof. Rau, Ratingen; PD Dr. Rehart, Frankfurt; PD Dr. Rudwaleit, Berlin; Prof. Schattenkirchner, München; Prof. Smolen, Wien/Österreich; Prof. Wagner, Nienburg; Dr. Weber, Zürich/Schweiz; Prof. Wollenhaupt, Hamburg; Prof. Zacher, Berlin; Prof. Zeidler, Hannover.

Interessenkonflikt

Es besteht kein Interessenkonflikt. Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen. Die Präsentation des Themas ist unabhängig und die Darstellung der Inhalte produktneutral.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Khan MA (2002) Update on spondyloarthropathies. Ann Intern Med 135: 896–907Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sieper J, Braun J, Rudwaleit M et al. (2002) Ankylosing spondylitis: an overview. Ann Rheum Dis 61 [Suppl 3]: 8–18Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braun J, Bollow M, Remlinger G et al. (1998) Prevalence of spondylarthropathies in HLA-B27 positive and negative blood donors. Arthritis Rheum 41: 58–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edmunds L, Elswood J, Kennedy LG, Calin A (1991) Primary ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic and enteropathic spondyloarthropathy: a controlled analysis. J Rheumatol 18: 696–698PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vilar MJ, Cury SE, Ferraz MB et al. (1997) Renal abnormalities in ankylosing spondylitis. Scand J Rheumatol 26: 19–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zink A, Braun J, Listing J, Wollenhaupt J (2000) Disability and handicap in rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis – results from the German rheumatological database. German Collaborative Arthritis Centers. J Rheumatol 27: 613–622PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karberg K, Zochling J, Sieper J et al. (2005) Bone loss is detected more frequently in patients with ankylosing spondylitis with syndesmophytes. J Rheumatol 32: 1290–1298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Donnelly S, Doyle DV, Denton A et al. (1994) Bone mineral density and vertebral compression fracture rates in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 53: 117–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braun J, Pincus T (2002) Mortality, course of disease and prognosis of patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 20 [Suppl 28]: S16–S22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braun J, Brandt J, Listing J et al. (2002) Treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis with infliximab: a randomised controlled multicentre trial. Lancet 359: 1187–1193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gorman JD, Sack KE, Davis JC Jr (2002) Treatment of ankylosing spondylitis by inhibition of tumor necrosis factor alpha. N Engl J Med 346: 1349–1356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van der Heijde D, Kivitz A, Schiff M et al. (2005) Adalimumab therapy results in significant reduction of signs and symptoms in subjects with ankylosing spondylitis: the ATLAS trial. Arthritis Rheum 52 [Suppl]: S281Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haibel H, Niewerth M, Brandt J et al. (2004) Measurement of quality of life in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis being treated with infliximab-a comparison of SF-36 and SF-12. Z Rheumatol 63: 393–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baraliakos X, Listing J, Rudwaleit M et al. (2005) Radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis after two years of treatment with the tumor necrosis factor alpha antibody infliximab. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 1462–1466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zochling J, van der Heijde D, Burgos-Vargas R et al. (2006) ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 65: 442–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zochling J, van der Heijde D, Dougados M, Braun J (2006) Current evidence for the management of ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 65: 423–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dougados M, Betteridge N, Burmester GR et al. (2004) EULAR standardized operating procedures for the elaboration, evaluation, dissemination, and implementation of recommendations endorsed by the EULAR standing committees. Ann Rheum Dis 63: 1172–1176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hedges LV (1982) Fitting continuous models to effect size data. J Educat Stat 7: 245–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, 2nd ed. Erlbaum, Hillsdale/NJGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cook RJ, Sackett DL (1995) The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 310: 452–454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J (1999) Clinical guidelines: Developing guidelines. BMJ 318: 593–596PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Amor B, Santos RS, Nahal R et al. (1994) Predictive factors for the longterm outcome of spondyloarthropathies. J Rheumatol 21: 1883–1887PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guillemin F, Briancon S, Pourel J, Gaucher A (1990) Long-term disability and prolonged sick leaves as outcome measurements in ankylosing spondylitis. Possible predictive factors. Arthritis Rheum 33: 1001–1006PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ward MM (2002) Predictors of the progression of functional disability in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 29: 1420–1425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Doran MF, Brophy S, MacKay K et al. (2003) Predictors of longterm outcome in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 30: 316–320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van der Heijde D, Wanders A, Mielants H et al. (2004) Prediction of progression of radiographic damage over 4 years in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 63 [Suppl 1]: 98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rudwaleit M, Listing J, Brandt J et al. (2004) Prediction of a major clinical response (BASDAI 50) to tumour necrosis factor alpha blockers in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 63: 665–670CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van der Heijde D, van der Linden S, Dougados M et al. (1999) Ankylosing spondylitis: plenary discussion and results of voting on selection of domains and some specific instruments. J Rheumatol 26: 1003–1005PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van der Heijde D, Bellamy N, Calin A et al. (1997) Preliminary core sets for endpoints in ankylosing spondylitis. Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group. J Rheumatol 24: 2225–2229Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wanders A, Landewe R, Spoorenberg A et al. (2004) Scoring of radiographic progression in randomised clinical trials in ankylosing spondylitis: a preference for paired reading order. Ann Rheum Dis 63: 1601–1604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dagfinrud H, Hagen K (2001) Physiotherapy interventions for ankylosing spondylitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4): CD002822Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kraag G, Stokes B, Groh J et al. (1990) The effects of comprehensive home physiotherapy and supervision on patients with ankylosing spondylitis – a randomized controlled trial. J Rheumatol 17: 228–233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hidding A, van der Linden S, Boers M et al. (1993) Is group physical therapy superior to individualized therapy in ankylosing spondylitis? A randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res 6: 117–125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Analay Y, Ozcan E, Karan A et al. (2003) The effectiveness of intensive group exercise on patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rehabil 17: 631–636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lim H-J, Moon Y-I, Lee MS (2005) Effects of home-based daily exercise therapy on joint mobility, daily activity, pain, and depression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatol Int 25: 225–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sweeney S, Taylor G, Calin A (2002) The effect of a home based exercise intervention package on outcome in ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized controlled trial. J Rheumatol 29: 763–766PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Van Tubergen A, Landewe R, van der Heijde D et al. (2001) Combined spa-exercise therapy is effective in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 45: 430–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Van Tubergen A, Boonen A, Landewe R et al. (2002) Cost effectiveness of combined spa-exercise therapy in ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 47: 459–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Barlow JH, Barefoot J (1996) Group education for people with arthritis. Pt Educat Counsel 27: 257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Basler HD, Rehfisch HP (1991) Cognitive-behavioral therapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis in a German self-help organization. J Psychosom Res 35: 345–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Krauth C, Rieger J, Bonisch A, Ehlebracht-Konig I (2003) Costs and benefits of an education program for patients with ankylosing spondylitis as part of an inpatient rehabilitation programs-study design and first results. Z Rheumatol 62 [Suppl 2]: 14–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wanders A, van der Heijde D, Landewé R et al. (2005) Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs reduce radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 52: 1756–1765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhang W, Doherty M, Arden N et al. (2005) EULAR evidence based recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis: report of a task force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 64: 669–681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Deeks JJ, Smith LA, Bradley MD (2002) Efficacy, tolerability, and upper gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 325: 619–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Konstam MA, Weir MR, Reicin A et al. (2001) Cardiovascular thrombotic events in controlled, clinical trials of rofecoxib. Circulation 104: 2280–2288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H et al. (2005) Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. N Engl J Med 352: 1092–1102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Solomon SD, McMurray JJV, Pfeffer MA et al. (2005) Cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib in a clinical trial for colorectal adenoma prevention. N Engl J Med 352: 1071–1080CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nussmeier NA, Whelton AA, Brown MT et al. (2005) Complications of the COX-2 inhibitors parecoxib and valdecoxib after cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 352: 1081–1091CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Juni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S et al. (2004) Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet 364: 2021–2029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lewis SC, Langman MJ, Laporte JR et al. (2002) Dose-response relationships between individual nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NANSAIDs) and serious upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis based on individual patient data. Br J Clin Pharmacol 54: 320–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhang W, Jones A, Doherty M (2004) Does paracetamol (acetaminophen) reduce the pain of osteoarthritis?: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Ann Rheum Dis 63: 901–907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Maugars Y, Mathis C, Vilon P, Prost A (1992) Corticosteroid injection of the sacroiliac joint in patients with seronegative spondylarthropathy. Arthritis Rheum 35: 564–568PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Luukkainen R, Nissila M, Asikainen E et al. (1999) Periarticular corticosteroid treatment of the sacroiliac joint in patients with seronegative spondylarthropathy. Clin Exp Rheumatol 17: 88–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chen J, Liu C (2005) Sulfasalazine for ankylosing spondylitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2: CD004800PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kirwan J, Edwards A, Huitfeldt B et al. (1993) The course of established ankylosing spondylitis and the effects of sulphasalazine over 3 years. Br J Rheumatol 32: 729–733PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lehtinen A, Leirisalo-Repo M, Taavitsainen M (1995) Persistence of enthesopathic changes in patients with spondyloarthropathy during a 6-month follow-up. Clin Exp Rheumatol 13: 733–736PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Chen J, Liu C (2004) Methotrexate for ankylosing spondylitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3: CD004524PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Altan L, Bingol U, Karakoc Y et al. (2001) Clinical investigation of methotrexate in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. Scand J Rheumatol 30: 255–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Roychowdhury B, Bintley-Bagot S, Bulgen DY et al. (2002) Is methotrexate effective in ankylosing spondylitis? Rheumatology 41: 1330–1332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gonzalez-Lopez L, Garcia-Gonzalez A, Vazquez-Del-Mercado M et al. (2004) Efficacy of methotrexate in ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial. J Rheumatol 31: 1568–1574PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ortiz Z (2004) Folic acid and folinic acid for reducing side effects in patients receiving methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 4Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Maksymowych WP, Jhangri GS, Fitzgerald AA et al. (2002) A six-month randomized, controlled, double-blind, dose-response comparison of intravenous pamidronate (60 mg versus 10 mg) in the treatment of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug-refractory ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 46: 766–773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Maksymowych WP, Jhangri GS, LeClercq S et al. (1998) An open study of pamidronate in the treatment of refractory ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 25: 714–717PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Maksymowych WP, Lambert R, Jhangri GS et al. (2001) Clinical and radiological amelioration of refractory peripheral spondyloarthritis by pulse intravenous pamidronate therapy. J Rheumatol 28: 144–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Adami S, Bhalla AK, Dorizzi R et al. (1987) The acute-phase response after bisphosphonate administration. Calcif Tiss Int 41: 326–331Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wei JC, Chan TW, Lin H et al. (2003) Thalidomide for severe refractory ankylosing spondylitis: a 6-month open-label trial. J Rheumatol 30: 2627–2631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Huang F, Gu J, Zhao W et al. (2002) One-year open-label trial of thalidomide in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Care Res 47: 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Davis JC Jr, van der Heijde D, Braun J et al. (2003) Recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (etanercept) for treating ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 48: 3230–3236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Brandt J, Khariouzov A, Listing J et al. (2003) Six-month results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of etanercept treatment in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 48: 1667–1675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Calin A, Dijkmans BA, Emery P et al. (2004) Outcomes of a multicentre randomised clinical trial of etanercept to treat ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 63: 1594–1600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Van der Heijde D, Dijkmans B, Geusens P et al. (2005) Efficacy and safety of infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Results of a randomized controlled trial (ASSERT). Arthritis Rheum 52: 582–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Haibel H, Brandt HC, Rudwaleit M et al. (2004) Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis: preliminary results of an open-label, 20-week trial. Arthritis Rheum 50 [Suppl]: S217Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Braun J, Brandt J, Listing J et al. (2005) Two year maintenance of efficacy and safety of infliximab in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 229–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Nikas SN, Alamanos Y, Voulgari PV et al. (2005) Infliximab therapy in ankylosing spondylitis: an observational study. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 940–942CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Van den Bosch F, Devinck M, Kruithof E et al. (2004) A prospective long-term study of the efficacy and safety of infliximab in 107 patients with spondyloarthropathy. Arthritis Rheum 50 [Suppl]: S611Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Baraliakos X, Brandt J, Listing J et al. (2004) Clinical response to long-term therapy with infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis – results after 3 years. Arthritis Rheum 50 [Suppl]: S615Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Baraliakos X, Listing J, Brandt J et al. (2005) Clinical response to discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis after 3 years of continuous treatment with infliximab. Arthritis Res Ther 7: R439–R444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Maini RN, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR et al. (1998) Therapeutic efficacy of multiple intravenous infusions of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody combined with low-dose weekly methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 41: 1552–1563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Elliott MJ, Maini RN, Feldmann M et al. (1994) Repeated therapy with monoclonal antibody to tumour necrosis factor alpha (cA2) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 344: 1125–1127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Braun J, Pham T, Sieper J et al. (2003) International ASAS consensus statement for the use of anti-tumour necrosis factor agents in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 62: 817–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lee J-H, Slifman NR, Gershon SK et al. (2002) Life-threatening histoplasmosis complicating immunotherapy with tumor necrosis factor a antagonists infliximab and etanercept. Arthritis Rheum 46: 2565–2570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Slifman NR, Gershon SK, Lee J-H et al. (2003) Listeria monocytogenes infection as a complication of treatment with tumor necrosis factor a-neutralizing agents. Arthritis Rheum 48: 319–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Keystone EC (2004) Safety issues related to emerging therapies for rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 22 [Suppl 35]: S148–S150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Baeten D, Kruithof E, van den Bosch F et al. (2003) Systematic safety follow up in a cohort of 107 patients with spondyloarthropathy treated with infliximab: a new perspective on the role of host defence in the pathogenesis of the disease? Ann Rheum Dis 62: 829–834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Mohan N, Edwards ET, Cupps TR et al. (2001) Demyelination occurring during anti-tumor necrosis factor a therapy for inflammatory arthritides. Arthritis Rheum 44: 2862–2869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ferraccioli GF, Assaloni R, Perin A et al. (2002) Drug-induced systemic lupus erythematosus and TNF-a blockers (multiple letters). Lancet 360: 645–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Shakoor N, Michalska M, Harris CA, Block JA (2002) Drug-induced systemic lupus erythematosus associated with etanercept therapy. Lancet 359: 579–580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Cairns AP, Duncan MKJ, Hinder AE, Taggart AJ (2002) New onset systemic lupus erythematosus in a patient receiving etanercept for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 61: 1031–1032CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Chung ES, Packer M, Lo KH et al., Anti-TNF Therapy Against Congestive Heart Failure Investigators (2003) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot trial of infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor-alpha, in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure: results of the anti-TNF Therapy Against Congestive Heart Failure (ATTACH) trial. Circulation 107: 3133–3140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Coletta AP, Clark AL, Banarjee P, Cleland JG (2002) Clinical trials update: RENEWAL (RENAISSANCE and RECOVER) and ATTACH. Eur J Heart Failure 4: 559–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wolfe F, Michaud MS (2004) Congestive heart failure in rheumatoid arthritis: rates, predictors and the effect of anti-TNF therapy. Am J Med 116: 311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kobelt G, Andlin-Sobocki P, Brophy S et al. (2004) The burden of ankylosing spondylitis and the cost-effectiveness of treatment with infliximab (Remicade). Rheumatology 43: 1158–1166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Singh G, Tandon N, Bala M (2004) A cost efficacy analysis on anti-TNF therapy in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 50 [Suppl]: S613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Sweeney S, Gupta R, Taylor G, Calin A (2001) Total hip arthroplasty in ankylosing spondylitis: outcome in 340 patients. J Rheumatol 28: 1862–1866PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Furnes O, Lie SA, Espehaug B et al. (2001) Hip disease and the prognosis of total hip replacements. A review of 53,698 primary total hip replacements reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1987–99. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83: 579–586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Brinker MR, Rosenberg AG, Kull L, Cox DD (1996) Primary noncemented total hip arthroplasty in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: clinical and radiographic results at an average follow-up period of 6 years. J Arthroplasty 11: 802–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Bhan S, Malhotra R (1996) Bipolar hip arthroplasty in ankylosing spondylitis. Arch Ortho Trauma Surg 115: 94–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Diaz de Rada P, Barroso-Diaz JL, Valenti JR (2004) Follow-up of the outcome of hip arthroplasty in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Rev Ortop Traumatol 48: 340–344Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Sochart DH, Porter ML (1997) Long-term results of total hip replacement in young patients who had ankylosing spondylitis. Eighteen to thirty-year results with survivorship analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79: 1181–1189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Van Royen BJ, de Kleuver M, Slot GH (1998) Polysegmental lumbar posterior wedge osteotomies for correction of kyphosis in ankylosing spondylitis. Eur Spine J 7: 104–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Jordan KM, Arden NK, Doherty M et al. (2003) EULAR Recommendations 2003: an evidence based approach to the management of knee osteoarthritis: report of a Task Force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 62: 1145–1155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Anderson JJ, Baron G, van der Heijde D et al. (2001) Ankylosing spondylitis assessment group preliminary definition of short-term improvement in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 44: 1876–1886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Brandt J, Listing J, Sieper J et al. (2004) Development and preselection of criteria for short term improvement after anti-TNF alpha treatment in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 63: 1438–1444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Zhang W, Doherty M, Arden N et al. (2005) Alternative method of measuring the strength of recommendation for evidence based guidelines. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 1462–1466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA et al. (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328: 1490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S et al. (2004) Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Services Research 4: 38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Schunemann HJ, Best D, Vist G, Oxman AD, for The GRADE Working Group (2003) Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. CMAJ 169: 677–680PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Van der Linden S, Valkenburg HA, Cats A (1984) Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. A proposal for modification of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum 27: 361–368PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Braun
    • 7
  • J. Zochling
    • 7
  • E. Märker-Hermann
    • 1
  • G. Stucki
    • 2
  • H. Böhm
    • 3
  • M. Rudwaleit
    • 4
  • H. Zeidler
    • 5
  • J. Sieper
    • 6
  1. 1.Klinik Innere Medizin IV, Dr. Horst-Schmidt-Kliniken GmbHWiesbadenDeutschland
  2. 2.Abteilung für Physikalische Medizin und RehabilitationLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenDeutschland
  3. 3.Radiologische Universitätsklinik der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität BonnDeutschland
  4. 4.Abteilung RheumatologieCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin FranklinBerlinDeutschland
  5. 5.Abteilung für RheumatologieMedizinische Hochschule HannoverDeutschland
  6. 6.Universitätsklinikum Benjamin Franklin, Freie Universität BerlinDeutschland
  7. 7.Rheumazentrum-Ruhrgebiet, St. Josefs-KrankenhausHerneDeutschland

Personalised recommendations