Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Rheumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dougados M, Hochberg MC (2002) Why is the concept of spondyloarthropathies important? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 16:495–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. van der Heijde D, Bellamy N, Calin A et al (1997) Preliminary core sets for endpoints in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 24:2225–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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:ii1–44

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 26:951–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kirkham JJ, Boers M, Tugwell P et al (2013) Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years. Trials 14:324

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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:b2700

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 44:1876–86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 63:1438–44

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 21:2281–5

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 15:302–7

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moll JM, Wright V (1972) An objective clinical study of chest expansion. Ann Rheum Dis 31:1–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 92

  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 67:489–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 62:127–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 64:127–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 21:2286–91

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Désirée van der Heijde.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 27 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bautista-Molano, W., Navarro-Compán, V., Landewé, R.B.M. et al. How well are the ASAS/OMERACT Core Outcome Sets for Ankylosing Spondylitis implemented in randomized clinical trials? A systematic literature review. Clin Rheumatol 33, 1313–1322 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-014-2728-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-014-2728-6

Keywords

Navigation