Comparison of eight published static finite element models of the intact lumbar spine : predictive power of models improves when combined together

Finite element (FE) model studies have made important contributions to our understanding of functional biomechanics of the lumbar spine. However, if a model is used to answer clinical and biomechanical questions over a certain population, their inherently large inter-subject variability has to be considered. Current FE model studies, however, generally account only for a single distinct spinal geometry with one set of material properties. This raises questions concerning their predictive power, their range of results and on their agreement with in vitro and in vivo values. Eight well-established FE models of the lumbar spine (L1-5) of different research centres around the globe were subjected to pure and combined loading modes and compared to in vitro and in vivo measurements for intervertebral rotations, disc pressures and facet joint forces. Under pure moment loading, the predicted L1-5 rotations of almost all models fell within the reported in vitro ranges, and their median values differed on average by only 2° for flexion-extension, 1° for lateral bending and 5° for axial rotation. Predicted median facet joint forces and disc pressures were also in good agreement with published median in vitro values. However, the ranges of predictions were larger and exceeded those reported in vitro, especially for the facet joint forces. For all combined loading modes, except for flexion, predicted median segmental intervertebral rotations and disc pressures were in good agreement with measured in vivo values. In light of high inter-subject variability, the generalization of results of a single model to a population remains a concern. This study demonstrated that the pooled median of individual model results, similar to a probabilistic approach, can be used as an improved predictive tool in order to estimate the response of the lumbar spine.

Comparison of eight published lumbar spine finite element models

Due to its ability to represent intricate systems with material nonlinearities as well as irregular loading, boundary, geometrical and material domains, the finite element (FE) method has been recognized as an important computational tool in spinal biomechanics. Current FE models generally account for a single distinct spinal geometry with one set of material properties despite inherently large inter-subject variability. The uncertainty and high variability in tissue material properties, geometry, loading and boundary conditions has cast doubt on the reliability of their predictions and comparability with reported in vitro and in vivo values. A multicenter study was undertaken to compare the results of eight well-established models of the lumbar spine that have been developed, validated and applied for many years. Models were subjected to pure and combined loading modes and their predictions were compared to in vitro and in vivo measurements for intervertebral rotations, disc pressures and facet joint forces. Under pure moment loading, the predicted L1-5 rotations of almost all models fell within the reported in vitro ranges; their median values differed on average by only 2° for flexion-extension, 1° for lateral bending and 5° for axial rotation. Predicted median facet joint forces and disc pressures were also in good agreement with previously published median in vitro values. However, the ranges of predictions were larger and exceeded the in vitro ranges, especially for facet joint forces. For all combined loading modes, except for flexion, predicted median segmental intervertebral rotations and disc pressures were in good agreement with in vivo values. The simulations yielded median facet joint forces of 0 N in flexion, 38 N in extension, 14 N in lateral bending and 60 N in axial rotation that could not be validated due to the paucity of in vivo facet joint forces. In light of high inter-subject variability, one must be cautious when generalizing predictions obtained from one deterministic model. This study demonstrates however that the predictive power increases when FE models are combined together. The median of individual numerical results can hence be used as an improved tool in order to estimate the response of the lumbar spine.

Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: Results of a randomised placebo-controlled trial (ABILITY-1)

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). Methods: Patients fulfilled Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria for axial spondyloarthritis, had a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of ≥ 4, total back pain score of ≥ 4 (10 cm visual analogue scale) and inadequate response, intolerance or contraindication to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); patients fulfilling modified New York criteria for ankylosing spondylitis were excluded. Patients were randomised to adalimumab (N=91) or placebo (N=94). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving ASAS40 at week 12. Efficacy assessments included BASDAI and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS). MRI was performed at baseline and week 12 and scored using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) index. Results: Significantly more patients in the adalimumab group achieved ASAS40 at week 12 compared with patients in the placebo group (36% vs 15%, p<0.001). Significant clinical improvements based on other ASAS responses, ASDAS and BASDAI were also detected at week 12 with adalimumab treatment, as were improvements in quality of life measures. Inflammation in the spine and sacroiliac joints on MRI significantly decreased after 12 weeks of adalimumab treatment. Shorter disease duration, younger age, elevated baseline C-reactive protein or higher SPARCC MRI sacroiliac joint scores were associated with better week 12 responses to adalimumab. The safety profile was consistent with what is known for adalimumab in ankylosing spondylitis and other diseases. Conclusions: In patients with nr-axSpA, adalimumab treatment resulted in effective control of disease activity, decreased inflammation and improved quality of life compared with placebo. Results from ABILITY-1 suggest that adalimumab has a positive benefit-risk profile in active nr-axSpA patients with inadequate response to NSAIDs.

Spinal inflammation in the absence of sacroiliac joint inflammation on magnetic resonance imaging in patients with active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis

Objective: To evaluate the presence of spinal inflammation with and without sacroiliac (SI) joint inflammation on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), and to compare the disease characteristics of these subgroups. Methods: ABILITY-1 is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of adalimumab versus placebo in patients with nonradiographic axial SpA classified using the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society axial SpA criteria. Baseline MRIs were centrally scored independently by 2 readers using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) method for the SI joints and the SPARCC 6-discovertebral unit method for the spine. Positive evidence of inflammation on MRI was defined as a SPARCC score of >2 for either the SI joints or the spine. Results: Among patients with baseline SPARCC scores, 40% had an SI joint score of >2 and 52% had a spine score of >2. Forty-nine percent of patients with baseline SI joint scores of <2, and 58% of those with baseline SI joint scores of >2, had a spine score of >2. Comparison of baseline disease characteristics by baseline SI joint and spine scores showed that a greater proportion of patients in the subgroup with a baseline SPARCC score of >2 for both SI joints and spine were male, and patients with spine and SI joint scores of <2 were younger and had shorter symptom duration. SPARCC spine scores correlated with baseline symptom duration, and SI joint scores correlated negatively with the baseline Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, but neither correlated with the baseline Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, total back pain, the patient's global assessment of disease activity, the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, morning stiffness, nocturnal pain, or C-reactive protein level. Conclusion: Assessment by experienced readers showed that spinal inflammation on MRI might be observed in half of patients with nonradiographic axial SpA without SI joint inflammation.