Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Guidelines Summary
  • Published:

Canadian recommendations for the management of spondyloarthritis address many different levels of patient care

Nature Clinical Practice Rheumatology volume 4, pages 234–235 (2008)Cite this article

The publication of recommendations and guidelines has become a common way to guide physicians in their diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making. Expert consensus is highly important when recommendations are developed.1 'Real' experts are aware that recommendations and guidelines differ; the latter might be used in court cases. For this reason, it is often considered preferable to offer guidance in terms of recommendations rather than to direct clinical practitioners. The Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) Working Group and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) have, therefore, created recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).2

Different groups and expert initiatives are keen to publish recommendations; however, the availability of too many recommendations on the same subject might lead to confusion. On the other hand, in special situations of rheumatic care in different countries, national consensus can be practically useful. Canadian recommendations for the management of spondyloarthritis (SpA)3 apply to the situation in Canada. As these recommendations are based on those for the management of AS made by both ASAS2,4 and EULAR,2 it is interesting to compare the two sets. The scope of the Canadian project is much broader (in terms of the diagnostic spectrum, target groups, ethics and politics involved) than the European initiative, so it is not possible to discuss all 38 recommendations in detail; those that are identical to the ASAS/EULAR recommendations2 are not discussed here.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Zochling J et al. (2006) The process of producing recommendations for rheumatic diseases: what is evidence? Ann Rheum Dis 65: 979

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Zochling J et al. (2006) ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 65: 442–452

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Maksymowych WP et al. (2007) The Canadian Rheumatology Association/Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada treatment recommendations for the management of spondyloarthritis: a national multidisciplinary stakeholder project. J Rheumatol 34: 2273–2284

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Braun J et al. (2006) First update of the international ASAS consensus statement for the use of anti-TNF agents in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 65: 316–320

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Salvarani C et al. (2006) Recommendations of the Italian Society for Rheumatology for the use of biologic (TNF-alpha blocking) agents in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 24: 70–78

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van der Linden S et al. (1984) Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. A proposal for modification of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum 27: 361–368

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zochling J et al. (2005) The current concept of spondyloarthritis with special emphasis on undifferentiated spondyloarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44: 1483–1491

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dougados M et al. (2004) EULAR standardised operating procedures for the elaboration, evaluation, dissemination, and implementation of recommendations endorsed by the EULAR standing committees. Ann Rheum Dis 63: 1172–1176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zochling J et al.: Development of a core set of domains for data collection in cohorts of AS patients receiving anti-TNFα therapy. J Rheumatol, in press

  10. Daniels N et al. (2003) An ethical template for pharmacy benefits. Health Aff (Millwood) 22: 125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (2003) Cost containment involving prescription drugs in health plans. In Code of Medical Ethics 2003–2004: Current Opinions with Annotations. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Landgrafenstr. 15, 44652 Herne, Germany j.braun@rheumazentrum-ruhrgebiet.de

Authors and Affiliations

  1. J Braun is the Medical Director of the Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet in Herne, Germany.,

    Jürgen Braun

Authors
  1. Jürgen Braun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Braun, J. Canadian recommendations for the management of spondyloarthritis address many different levels of patient care. Nat Rev Rheumatol 4, 234–235 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0766

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0766

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing