Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 33, Issue 9, pp 1313–1322 | Cite as

How well are the ASAS/OMERACT Core Outcome Sets for Ankylosing Spondylitis implemented in randomized clinical trials? A systematic literature review

  • Wilson Bautista-Molano
  • Victoria Navarro-Compán
  • Robert B. M. Landewé
  • Maarten Boers
  • Jamie J. Kirkham
  • Désirée van der HeijdeEmail author
Original Article


This study aims to investigate how well the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)/Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) core set and response criteria for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) have been implemented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. A systematic literature search was performed up to June 2013 looking for RCTs in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) (AS and non-radiographic axial SpA). The assessed domains and instruments belonging to the core sets for disease-controlling anti-rheumatic therapy (DC-ART) and symptom-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SMARDs) were extracted. Results were reported separately for those trials published until 2 years after the publication of the core set (1 April 2001; ‘control trials’) and those trials published at least 2 years after the publication date (‘implementation trials’). One hundred twenty-three articles from 99 RCTs were included in the analysis, comparing 48 ‘control trials’ and 51 ‘implementation trials’. Regarding DC-ART core set, the following domains were significantly more frequently assessed in the ‘implementation group’ in comparison to the ‘control group’: ‘physical function’ (100 vs 41.7 %; p ≤ 0.001), ‘peripheral joints/entheses’ (100 vs 33.3 %; p ≤ 0.001) and ‘fatigue’ (100 vs 0 %; p ≤ 0.001). Three instruments were significantly more used in the ‘implementation group’: Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) (100 vs 8.3 %; p = ≤ 0.001), CRP (92.3 vs 58.3 %; p = 0.01) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) (53.8 vs 0 %; p = 0.001). Regarding SMARD core set domains, physical function (92 vs 23 %; p ≤ 0.001) and fatigue (84 vs 17 %; p ≤ 0.001), as well as the instruments BASFI (88 vs 14 %; p ≤ 0.001) and BASMI (52 vs 0 %; p ≤ 0.001), increased significantly in the ‘implementation group’. Twenty per cent of trials from the ‘implementation group’ but none from the ‘control group’ included all domains of the core set. In conclusion, this study provides evidence for the implementation of the ASAS/OMERACT core set in RCTs of both DC-ART and SMARD. This applies to the use of the domains and, to a lesser extent, to the specific instruments.


Ankylosing spondylitis Core outcome set Randomized controlled trial 



The authors would like to thank Prof. Ernst Feldtkeller for the collaboration in collecting many papers. Wilson Bautista-Molano was supported by an ASAS Fellowship. Victoria Navarro-Compán was partially supported by a grant from the Fundación Española de Reumatología.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10067_2014_2728_MOESM1_ESM.docx (27 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 27 kb)


  1. 1.
    Dougados M, Hochberg MC (2002) Why is the concept of spondyloarthropathies important? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 16:495–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Heijde D, Bellamy N, Calin A et al (1997) Preliminary core sets for endpoints in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 24:2225–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sieper J, Rudwaleit M, Baraliakos X et al (2009) The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) handbook: a guide to assess spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 68:ii1–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Heijde D, Calin A, Dougados M et al (1999) Selection of instruments in the core set for DC-ART, SMARD, physical therapy, and clinical record keeping in ankylosing spondylitis. Progress report of the ASAS working group assessments in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 26:951–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kirkham JJ, Boers M, Tugwell P et al (2013) Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years. Trials 14:324PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 44:1876–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brandt J, Listing J, Sieper J et al (2004) Development and pre-selection of criteria for short term improvement after anti-TNF alpha treatment in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 63:1438–44PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calin A, Garrett S, Whitelock H, Kennedy LG, O’Hea J, Mallorie P et al (1994) A new approach to defining functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: the development of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index. J Rheumatol 21:2281–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dougados M, Gueguen A, Nakache JP, Nguyen M, Mery C, Amor B (1988) Evaluation of a functional index and an articular index in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 15:302–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moll JM, Wright V (1972) An objective clinical study of chest expansion. Ann Rheum Dis 31:1–8PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cash JM. Evaluation of the patient: history and physical examination. In: Klippel JH, editor. Primer on the rheumatic diseases. Atlanta: Arthritis Foundation; 1997 p. 92Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Heijde D, Landewé R, Feldtkeller E (2008) Proposal of a linear definition of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) and comparison with the 2-step and 10-step definitions. Ann Rheum Dis 67:489–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heuft-Dorenbosch L, Spoorenberg A, van Tubergen A, Landewé R, van der Tempel H, Mielants H et al (2003) Assessment of enthesitis in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 62:127–32PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Creemers MC, Franssen MJ, van’t Hof MA et al (2005) Assessment of outcome in ankylosing spondylitis: an extended radiographic scoring system. Ann Rheum Dis 64:127–9PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garrett S, Jenkinson T, Kennedy LG, Whitelock H, Gaisford P, Calin A (1994) A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index. J Rheumatol 21:2286–91PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Clinical Rheumatology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wilson Bautista-Molano
    • 1
    • 2
  • Victoria Navarro-Compán
    • 1
    • 3
  • Robert B. M. Landewé
    • 4
  • Maarten Boers
    • 5
    • 6
  • Jamie J. Kirkham
    • 7
  • Désirée van der Heijde
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Rheumatology Department, C1RLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Rheumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Militar CentralUMNGBogotáColombia
  3. 3.Rheumatology DepartmentUniversity Hospital La PazMadridSpain
  4. 4.Rheumatology Department, Academic Medical CenterUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of RheumatologyVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations