Influence of function movement on the outcome of ankylosing spondylitis under the treat-to-target stratery
10.3760/cma.j.cn141217-20220328-00113
- VernacularTitle:强直性脊柱炎患者功能性动作筛查对达标治疗结局的影响研究
- Author:
Xiaohui WU
1
;
Min LI
;
Wei WANG
;
Jiepei SUN
;
Mai YANG
;
Min YANG
;
Jia WU
;
Hu SHA
;
Yuan LI
Author Information
1. 四川省骨科医院康复科，成都 610041
- Keywords:
Spondylitis, ankylosing;
Treatment outcome;
Functional movement screen;
Adalimumab;
Disease activity
- From:
Chinese Journal of Rheumatology
2022;26(8):524-529,C8-2
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the effect of baseline function movement assessment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) on treatment outcomes.Methods:The clinical data of 90 patients with AS who met the medical insurance treatment for major disease in Chengdu were collected including clinical symptoms, functional movement screen (FMS) and ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS) after 24 weeks adalimumab treatment. They were divided into the non-treat-to-target group and the non-treat-to target group based on the ASDAS score, t-test or χ2 test was used to compare the differences between the two groups. Logistic regression model was used to analyze the influence of baseline FMS on the outcome of patients reaching the treatment target. Results:① The two groups were different in the FMS [(15.8±2.3) vs (12. 6±2.5), t=6.17, P<0.001], squat [(2.2±0.6) vs (1.7±0.5), t=3.57, P=0.001], hurdle spanning [(2.2±0.7) vs (1.8±0.6), t=2.11, P=0.038], straight lunge [(2.3±0.7) vs (1.7±0.5), t=4.23, P<0.001], shoulder flexibility [(2.5±0.6) vs (2.2±0.8), t=2.21, P=0.037], active straight leg raise [(2.1±0.6) vs (1.8±0.6), t=2.35, P=0.021], spinal stabilization pushups [(2.4±0.7) vs (1.8±0.8), t=3.76, P<0.001], body rotation stability [(2.2±0.7) vs (1.6±0.8), t=3.42, P=0.001] at baseline. ② The two groups were different in ASDAS score [(0.96±0.28) vs (2.19±0.52), t=14.69, P=0.000], FMS [(17.4±1.9) vs (12.7±2.8), t=9.77, P<0.001], deep squat [(2.6±0.5) vs (1.5±0.5), t=9.09, P<0.001], hurdle step [(2.2±0.6) vs (1.8±0.8), t=2.80, P=0.006], straight lunge [(2.6±0.6) vs (1.8±0.9), t=4.85, P<0.001], shoulder flexibility [(2.8±0.4) vs (2.5±0.5), t=2.10, P=0.038], active straight leg raise [(2.2±0.6) vs (1.9±0.8), t=2.46, P=0.016], spinal stability push-ups [(2.8±0.4) vs (1.6±0.7), t=10.36, P<0.001], and body rotation stability [(2.3±0.7) vs (1.6±0.8), t=4.76, P<0.001] at the end of the observation. ③ The cut-off value of the FMS for predicting whether AS patients meet the standard at baseline was 14.25 points (Sensitivity 0.733, specificity 0.800). ④ Logistic regression results showed that in the baseline, FMS series of action tests, squat [ OR (95% CI)=0.155 (0.035, 0.677), P=0.013], straight lunge [ OR (95% CI)=0.375 (0.148, 0.953), P=0.039], spinal stability push-ups [ OR(95% CI)=0.136(0.043, 0.436), P=0.001], and body rotation stability [ OR(95% CI)=0.308 (0.121, 0.780), P=0.013] were the influencing factors of the AS patient's treatment outcome ( P<0.05). Conclusion:The AS patients in the non-treat-to-target group have better FMS tests at baseline and at the end of the study than the non-treat-to-target group. Squats, straight lunges, remember stable push-ups, and body rotation stability are the influencing factors for the treatment outcomes of AS patients at baseline.
