Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 281–288 | Cite as

A survey of European and Canadian rheumatologists regarding the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis and extra-articular manifestations

  • Filip Van den Bosch
Original Article


Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a disabling inflammatory disease accompanied by a variety of extra-articular manifestations in a significant number of patients. These manifestations, including Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, psoriasis, and uveitis, share a similar inflammatory mechanism with one another and with AS. Extra-articular manifestations are observed in a larger percentage of patients with AS and spondyloarthritides (SpAs) than the normal population; therefore, it is important to identify these and other inflammatory-mediated conditions and consider them when treating SpAs. How rheumatologists approach patients with both AS and extra-articular manifestations may lead to a better understanding of what treatment approaches could be taken to optimize patient outcomes. Rheumatologists (N = 453) from five European countries and Canada who treat AS were surveyed to determine treatment practices and management of both AS and its associated extra-articular manifestations. Most rheumatologists (93%) believe AS could be diagnosed earlier as the average time between symptom onset and diagnosis was approximately 4 years. In total, 60% routinely screen patients with AS for extra-articular manifestations, although this varied considerably across countries. The majority (97%) agrees that controlling inflammation is critical during treatment, and patients with extra-articular manifestations tend to have poorer prognoses than those patients with only axial AS. Treatment considerations varied depending on whether patients presented with only axial AS or had extra-articular manifestations, where use of biologics became more common. Rheumatologists agree that patients with both AS and extra-articular manifestations require a different treatment strategy than patients with AS alone. Results of this survey highlight areas where rheumatologists differ in their clinical management of patients with AS including tools used for disease assessment and the routine screening, or lack thereof, for other inflammatory diseases. This evidence may suggest aspects within clinical practice where modifications may be made in order to optimize patient outcomes.


Ankylosing spondylitis Biologics Extra-articular manifestation Inflammation Spondyloarthritides 



Responses were analyzed by Harris Interactive, an international market research company.


Financial support for this study was provided by Schering-Plough Corporation.

Conflict of interest

Filip Van den Bosch has previously received honoraria from Schering-Plough Corporation.


  1. 1.
    Braun J, Baraliakos X, Brandt J et al (2005) Therapy of ankylosing spondylitis. Part II: biological therapies in the spondyloarthritides. Scand J Rheumatol 34:178–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vander Cruyssen B, Ribbens C, Boonen A et al (2007) The epidemiology of ankylosing spondylitis and the commencement of anti-TNF therapy in daily rheumatology practice. Ann Rheum Dis 66:1072–1077CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGonagle D, Gibbon W, O’Connor P et al (1998) Characteristic magnetic resonance imaging entheseal changes of knee synovitis in spondylarthropathy. Arthritis Rheum 41:694–700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braun J, Bollow M, Eggens U et al (1994) Use of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging with fast imaging in the detection of early and advanced sacroiliitis in spondyloarthropathy patients. Arthritis Rheum 37:1039–1045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Muche B, Bollow M, François RJ et al (2003) Anatomic structures involved in early- and late-stage sacroiliitis in spondylarthritis: a detailed analysis by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 48:1374–1384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laloux L, Voisin MC, Allain J et al (2001) Immunohistological study of entheses in spondyloarthropathies: comparison in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 60:316–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braun J, Bollow M, Neure L et al (1995) Use of immunohistologic and in situ hybridization techniques in the examination of sacroiliac joint biopsy specimens from patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 38:499–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bollow M, Fischer T, Reisshauer H et al (2000) Quantitative analyses of sacroiliac biopsies in spondyloarthropathies: T cells and macrophages predominate in early and active sacroiliitis—cellularity correlates with the degree of enhancement detected by magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Rheum Dis 59:135–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braun J, Landewé R, Hermann KG, ASSERT Study Group et al (2006) Major reduction in spinal inflammation in patients with ankylosing spondylitis after treatment with infliximab: results of a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthritis Rheum 54:1646–1652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braun J, Sieper J (2002) Building consensus on nomenclature and disease classification for ankylosing spondylitis: results and discussion of a questionnaire prepared for the International Workshop on New Treatment Strategies in Ankylosing Spondylitis, Berlin, Germany, 18–19 January 2002. Ann Rheum Dis 61(Suppl 3):iii61–iii67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van der Heijde D, Dijkmans B, Geusens P, Ankylosing Spondylitis Study for the Evaluation of Recombinant Infliximab Therapy Study Group et al (2005) Efficacy and safety of infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (ASSERT). Arthritis Rheum 52:582–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chorus AMJ, Miedema HS, Boonen A et al (2003) Quality of life and work in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis of working age. Ann Rheum Dis 62:1178–1184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ozgül A, Peker F, Taskaynatan MA et al (2006) Effect of ankylosing spondylitis on health-related quality of life and different aspects of social life in young patients. Clin Rheumatol 25:168–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zink A, Listing J, Klindworth C, German Collaborative Arthritis Centres et al (2001) The national database of the German collaborative arthritis centres: I. Structure, aims, and patients. Ann Rheum Dis 60:199–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Linden SM, Valkenburg HA, Cats A (1984) Evaluation of the diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis: a proposal for modification of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum 27:361–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mau W, Zeidler H, Mau R et al (1988) Clinical features and prognosis of patients with possible ankylosing spondylitis: results of a 10-year follow-up. J Rheumatol 14:1109–1114Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rudwaleit M, van der Heijde D, Khan MA et al (2004) How to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis early. Ann Rheum Dis 63:535–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rudwaleit M, Landewe R, van der Heijde D et al (2009) The development of assessment of spondyloarthritis international society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part I): classification of paper patients by expert opinion including uncertainty appraisal. Ann Rheum Dis 68:770–776CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rudwaleit M, van der Heijde D, Landewe R et al (2009) The development of assessment of spondyloarthritis international society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part II): validation and final selection. Ann Rheum Dis 68:777–783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ribbens C, Vastesaeger N, Brasseur J et al (2006) An epidemiological cross-sectional study of ankylosing spondylitis in Belgium: the ASPECT cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 65(suppl II):539Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zochling J, van der Heijde D, Burgos-Vargos R et al (2006) ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 65:442–454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haibel H, Brandt HC, Song IH et al (2007) No efficacy of subcutaneous methotrexate in active ankylosing spondylitis: a 16 week open label trial. Ann Rheum Dis 66:4–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van den Bosch R, Kruithof E, De Vos M et al (2000) Crohn’s disease associated with spondyloarthropathy: effect of TNF-α blockade with infliximab on articular symptoms. Lancet 356:1821–1822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Generini S, Giacomelli R, Fedi R et al (2004) Infliximab in spondyloarthropathy associated with Crohn’s disease: an open study on the efficacy of inducing and maintaining remission of musculoskeletal and gut manifestations. Ann Rheum Dis 63:1664–1669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Humira® (Adalimumab) Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC). February 2008Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    HUMIRA® (adalimumab) Receives FDA approval for treatment of Crohn’s disease [press release]. Abbott Laboratories; February 27, 2007. Available via Accessed 4 Sept 2008
  27. 27.
    Marzo-Ortega H, McGonagle D, O’Connor P et al (2003) Efficacy of etanercept for treatment of Crohn’s related spondyloarthritis but not colitis. Ann Rheum Dis 62:74–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Enbrel® (Etanercept) Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC). July 2008Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Remicade® (Infliximab) Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC). August 2008Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guignard S, Gossec L, Ruyssen-Witrand A et al (2006) Tumor necrosis factor antibodies reduce uveitis flares more than soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor in spondyloarthropathy patients. Ann Rheum Dis 65(suppl II):218Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Clinical Rheumatology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RheumatologyGent University HospitalGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations