Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Response to: Correspondence on ‘No efficacy of anti-IL-23 therapy for axial spondyloarthritis in randomised controlled trials but in post-hoc analyses of psoriatic arthritis-related ‘physicianreported spondylitis’?’ by Siebert and Marzo-Ortega
  1. Juergen Braun1,
  2. Robert BM Landewé2,3
  1. 1 Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Ruhr Universität Bochum, Herne, NRW, Germany
  2. 2 Amsterdam Rheumatology Center, AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Rheumatology, Zuyderland MC, Heerlen, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Juergen Braun, Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Herne 44649, Germany; juergen.braun{at}elisabethgruppe.de

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

With great interest, we read the comment of our colleagues from the UK on our recent viewpoint,1 and we appreciate that they largely agree with us.2 This is a bit different in a recent review on the same topic,3 which argues that it is still possible that anti-IL23 agents work for axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Nevertheless, our colleagues from the UK raise two important points, which we like to shortly comment on.

First, the important factor of age is discussed, which plays an important role in the frequent clinical situation of patients presenting to the doctor because of acute or chronic back pain—simply because the prevalence of degenerative changes in the axial skeleton does increase with age,4 5 and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) starts most often in the third decade of life6 …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Josef S Smolen

  • Contributors Both authors have equally contributed.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles