These findings, which need to be confirmed in a larger cohort, suggest that a Th17-targeted therapeutic approach may be useful for anti-TNFα non-responder patients or as an adjunct to anti-TNFα therapy, provided that safety concerns can be addressed.

Objective To estimate the proportion of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) in a UK national biologics registry who met criteria for fibromyalgia (FM), and to delineate the characteristics of these patients. Methods Two cohorts of patients are prospectively recruited from across 83 centers in the UK for the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR‐AS). All patients are required to meet Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria for axial SpA. Patients are either newly starting biologic therapy (biologics cohort) or are naive to treatment with biologic agents (non‐biologics cohort) at the time of recruitment, and all patients are followed up prospectively. At recruitment and follow‐up, clinical information and measurements are recorded while patients complete the 2011 research criteria for FM and assessments of the level of disease activity and work impact. Results Of the patients registered in the BSRBR‐AS, 1,504 (68% male) were eligible for the current analysis, of whom 311 (20.7%) met the 2011 research criteria for FM. Prevalence of FM was similar between patients who fulfilled the modified New York criteria for AS (19.7%) and those who fulfilled ASAS imaging criteria but not the modified New York criteria (25.2%); however, among those who fulfilled only the ASAS clinical criteria, the prevalence of FM was lower (9.5%). Patients who met FM criteria reported significantly worse disease activity, function, global severity scores, and quality of life, and were more likely to have moderate or severe levels of mood disorder and clinically important fatigue. Patients who met FM criteria reported experiencing work impairment around half their working time. Meeting FM criteria was not related to elevated C‐reactive protein levels or most extraspinal manifestations, but was associated with a higher likelihood of having received biologic therapy. Conclusion Developing management approaches that would address the significant unmet clinical needs of the 1 in 5 patients with axial SpA who meet criteria for FM should be a research priority.

Although a small pilot study, these results suggest that apremilast may be effective and well tolerated in AS and modulates biomarkers of bone biology. These data support further research of apremilast in axial inflammation.

ObjectivesTo quantify, among patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), the benefit on work outcomes associated with commencing biologic therapy.MethodsThe British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Axial Spondyloarthritis (BSRBRAS) recruited patients meeting Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society criteria for axSpA naïve to biological therapy across 83 centres in Great Britain. Work outcomes (measured using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Index) were compared between those starting biological therapy at the time of recruitment and those not. Differences between treatment groups were adjusted using propensity score matching. Results from BSRBR-AS were combined with other studies in a meta-analysis to calculate pooled estimates.ResultsOf the 577 participants in this analysis who were in employment, 27.9% were starting biological therapy at the time of recruitment. After propensity score adjustment, patients undergoing biological therapy, at 12-month follow-up, experienced significantly greater improvements (relative to non-biological therapy) in presenteeism (−9.4%, 95% CI −15.3% to –3.5%), overall work impairment (−13.9%, 95% CI −21.1% to –6.7%) and overall activity impairment (−19.2%, 95% CI −26.3% to –12.2%). There was no difference in absenteeism (−1.5%, 95% CI −8.0 to 4.9). Despite these improvements, impact on work was still greater in the biological treated cohort at follow-up. In the meta-analysis including 1109 subjects across observational studies and trials, treatment with biological therapy was associated with significantly greater improvements in presenteeism, work impairment and activity impairment, but there was no difference in absenteeism.ConclusionsThere is consistent evidence that treatment with biological therapy significantly improves work productivity and activity impairment in people with axSpA. However, there remain substantial unmet needs in relation to work.