Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical efficacy and safety of adalimumab versus etanercept in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and total spinal ankylosis in Croatia: a multicentre 12-month follow-up study

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

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the 12-month efficacy and safety profile of adalimumab and etanercept in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and total spinal ankylosis (TSA).

Type of study design

Case-series follow-up study.

Design

Twenty-eight patients (26 men and 2 women) with active AS (BASDAI > 4) and TSA were treated as follows: 19 patients receiving adalimumab and 9 patients receiving etanercept. Twelve-month data related to the efficacy and safety of these two TNF-alpha inhibitors were evaluated. The primary endpoint was ASAS 20 (the ASsessment in AS International Working Group criteria for 20% improvement) at weeks 12 and 52. Other measures that were evaluated were function (BASFI), disease activity (BASDAI), patient’s and physician’s global disease assessment on visual analogue scale (VAS) and C-reactive protein.

Results

In both adalimumab and etanercept groups, there was a significant improvement in all observed variables (baseline compared to weeks 12 and 52). This improvement was sustained for the whole follow-up period. In the adalimumab group, at week 12, ASAS 20 was achieved in 18/19 patients and at week 52 in 17/19 patients. In the etanercept group, at week 12 ASAS 20 was achieved in all patients and at week 52 in 6/9 patients.

Conclusion

In patients with active AS and TSA, adalimumab and etanercept treatment showed significant improvement in function and disease activity. No serious side effects or adverse effects were observed in our cohort.

Key Points

• TNF-alpha inhibitors can be effective treatment options for patients with AS and having total spinal ankylosis.

• Patients with advanced AS should not be disregarded as good candidates for treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boonen A, van der Linden S (2006) The burden of ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 33(Suppl. 78):4–11

    Google Scholar 

  2. Machado P, Landewé R, Braun J et al (2010) Both structural damage and inflammation of the spine contribute to impairment of spinal mobility in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2009.124206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee W, Reveille JD, Davis JC Jr, Learch TJ, Ward MM, Weisman MH (2007) Are there gender differences in severity of ankylosing spondylitis? Results from the PSOAS cohort. Ann Rheum Dis https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2006.060293.

  4. Webers C, Essers I, Ramiro S et al (2016) Gender-attributable differences in outcome of ankylosing spondylitis: long-term results from the outcome in ankylosing spondylitis international study. Rheumatology (Oxford). https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kev340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Molnar C, Scherer A, Baraliakos X et al (2018) TNF blockers inhibit spinal radiographic progression in ankylosing spondylitis by reducing disease activity: results from the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort. Ann Rheum Dis. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sepriano A, Regel A, van der Heijde D et al (2017) Efficacy and safety of biological and targeted-synthetic DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis. RMD Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2016-000396

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Braun J, van der Heijde D, Dougados M, Emery P, Khan MA, Sieper J, van der Linden S (2002) Staging of patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a preliminary proposal. Ann Rheum Dis. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.61.suppl_3.iii19

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Babić-Naglić D, Grazio S, Anić B et al (2013) The proposal of Croatian Society for Rheumatology for anti-TNF-alpha therapy in adult patients with spondyloarthritides. Reumatizam 60(1):52–56

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Anderson JJ, Baron G, van der Heijde D, Felson DT, Dougados M (2001) Ankylosing spondylitis assessment group preliminary definition of short-term improvement in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum. https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(200108)44:8%3c1876::AID-ART326%3e3.0.CO;2-F

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Calin A, Garrett S, Whitelock H, Kennedy LG, O’Hea J, Mallorie P, Jenkinson T (1994) A new approach to defining functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: the development of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index. J Rheumatol 21(12):2281–2285

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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(12):2286–2291

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Van der Heijde D, Pangan AL, Schiff MH et al (2008) Adalimumab effectively reduces the signs and symptoms of active ankylosing spondyilitis in patients with total spinal ankylosis. Ann Rheum Dis. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2007.082529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dougados M, Braun J, Szanto S et al (2011) Efficacy of etanercept on rheumatic signs and pulmonary function tests in advanced ankylosing spondylitis: results of a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study (SPINE). Ann Rheum Dis; https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2010.139261

  14. Dougados M, Braun J, Szanto S et al (2012) Continuous efficacy of etanercept in severe and advanced ankylosing spondylitis: results from a 12-week open-label extension of the SPINE study. Rheumatology (Oxford). https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kes125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Poddubnyy D, Haibel H, Listing J et al (2012) Baseline radiographic damage, elevated acute-phase reactant levels, and cigarette smoking status predict spinal radiographic progression in early axial spondylarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.33465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jeong H, Eun YH, Kim IY et al (2018) Effect of tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors on spinal radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Int J Rheum Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.13270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Poddubnyy D, Sieper J (2012) Radiographic progression in ankylosing spondylitis/axial spondyloarthritis: how fast and how clinically meaningful? Curr Opin Rheumatol. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0b013e328352b7bd

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rudwaleit M, van der Heijde D, Landewé 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. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2009.108233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Deminger A, Klingberg E, Geijer M et al (2018) A five-year prospective study of spinal radiographic progression and its predictors in men and women with ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Res Ther. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-018-1665-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rheumatology, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Referral Center for Spondyloarthropathis Ministry of Health of the Republic of Croatia, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia

    Frane Grubišić & Simeon Grazio

  2. Department of Rheumatology and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Đurđica Babić Naglić & Porin Perić

  3. Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Center Dubrava, Zagreb, Croatia

    Jadranka Morović-Vergles & Ana Gudelj Gračanin

  4. Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Branimir Anić

  5. Rheumatology, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Thalassotherapia Opatija, Opatija, Croatia

    Tatjana Kehler

  6. Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Srđan Novak

  7. Department for Rheumatic Diseases, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, General Hospital “Dr. Josip Benčević”, Slavonski Brod, Croatia

    Marino Hanih

  8. Polyclinic for Rheumatic Diseases, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation “Dr. Drago Ćop”, Zagreb, Croatia

    Nikolina Ljubičić Marković

Authors
  1. Frane Grubišić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Đurđica Babić Naglić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Porin Perić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jadranka Morović-Vergles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Branimir Anić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tatjana Kehler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Srđan Novak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marino Hanih
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ana Gudelj Gračanin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Nikolina Ljubičić Marković
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Simeon Grazio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design.

Material preparation was performed by FG and SG; data collection was performed by ĐBN, PP, JM-V, BA, TK, SN, MH, AGG, NLM and SG; and analysis was performed by FG.

The first draft was written by FG and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

This research has been performed in accordance with the ethical standard laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient’s personal data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frane Grubišić.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

None.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grubišić, F., Naglić, Đ.B., Perić, P. et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of adalimumab versus etanercept in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and total spinal ankylosis in Croatia: a multicentre 12-month follow-up study. Clin Rheumatol 41, 2417–2421 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-022-06177-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-022-06177-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation