4.5 Review

Treatment of axial spondyloarthritis: an update

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 205-216

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41584-022-00761-z

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review summarizes the progress in the pharmacological management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), including newly approved biologic DMARDs. With advances in the understanding of the immunopathogenesis of this disease, new therapies have become available, which can substantially improve symptoms, signs and quality of life.
Axial spondyloarthritis, an immune-mediated inflammatory disease, is characterized by chronic back pain, joint stiffness and fatigue that can severely affect the quality of life. This Review summarizes the progress in the pharmacological management of this disease, including newly approved biologic DMARDs. Diagnosis and management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has vastly improved over the past two decades. With advances in the discernment of immunopathogenesis of this disease, new therapies have become available, which are associated with substantial improvement in symptoms, signs and quality of life. The four broad categories of approved treatment options are physical therapy and exercise (which have been known to be beneficial for millennia), NSAIDs (since the 1950s), TNF inhibitors (first FDA approval in 2003) and IL-17 inhibitors (first FDA approval in 2016). In addition, there have been a host of new developments in the axSpA field, including new treatment guidelines, the FDA approval of three biologic DMARDs to treat non-radiographic axSpA, the FDA and EMA approval of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for ankylosing spondylitis, new data on the effect of biologic DMARDs on structural progression in ankylosing spondylitis, strategy trials on tapering or stopping TNF inhibitors in patients in remission, trials of treat-to-target strategy in axSpA, and several new molecules in phase III studies. This Review explores the developments in the management of axSpA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据