Search

MiDAS study assessed the percentage of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients treated in routine clinical practice who achieved control of disease activity according to Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA). Observational, non-interventional, cross-sectional, multicenter study conducted under conditions of routine clinical practice in 36 centers with outpatient rheumatology clinics in Spanish public hospitals. Patients included were adults (≥18 years) with ≥6 months PsA diagnosis according to classification for PsA (CASPAR) criteria and undergoing treatment ≥3 months. The main variable evaluated was the percentage of patients under remission and low disease activity, assessed through DAPSA and MDA. 313 patients with PsA were included: 54.3% male; with mean age of 54.1 ± 12.2 years and mean disease duration of 10.5 ± 9.0 years. Mean C-reactive protein (CRP) serum levels were 4.9 ± 7.3 mg/L. At the study visit, 58.5% of patients were in monotherapy (17.6% biological and 40.9% non-biological) and 41.2% were receiving biological and non-biological therapy. 59.4% of patients showed low disease activity (DAPSA ≤ 14) and 19.8% were on remission (DAPSA ≤ 4). Moreover, 51.4% of the patients reached an MDA status (≥5 MDA). Around 40% of PsA patients presented uncontrolled disease, highlighting the need to improve the management of these patients in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

La artritis psoriásica (APs) es una enfermedad inflamatoria crónica mediada por el sistema inmune que afecta al sistema musculoesquelético y la piel, y se manifiesta de forma heterogénea y con un curso variable. En la práctica clínica habitual se ha observado variabilidad y limitaciones en su seguimiento. El objetivo del proyecto CREA fue consensuar estrategias de mejora para la valoración inicial y el seguimiento de los pacientes con APs en España. Se realizó una encuesta a una muestra representativa de reumatólogos expertos del territorio español, que contenía 33 preguntas sobre la práctica clínica habitual, los recursos disponibles y las limitaciones actuales en el seguimiento de los pacientes con APs. Se discutieron los resultados en reuniones regionales y se propusieron 105 estrategias que, finalmente, fueron valoradas por 85 expertos en un consenso Delphi. Las limitaciones destacadas en el seguimiento de la APs fueron la falta de tiempo en consulta, de personal de enfermería, y el retraso en la realización de pruebas de imagen. Se propusieron 108 estrategias relacionadas con la evaluación de los índices de calidad de vida e impacto de la enfermedad; las comorbilidades y las manifestaciones extraarticulares; las pruebas de laboratorio; las pruebas de imagen; la exploración física y metrología y los índices de actividad y función. Entre todas, 53 se consideraron altamente aconsejables, sin diferencias regionales en los valores de consenso. Las propuestas ofrecidas en el estudio actual son aplicables a todo el territorio nacional, responden a las necesidades no cubiertas detectadas en la encuesta inicial, conforman un cuadro de actuación mínimo y aseguran un seguimiento óptimo de los pacientes con APs. Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease that affects the musculoskeletal system and skin, and manifests heterogeneously, with a variable course. In current clinical practice, variability and limitations in its follow-up have been observed. The aim of the CREA project was to agree on strategies to improve the initial assessment and follow-up of patients with PsA in Spain. A survey was conducted among a representative sample of expert rheumatologists in Spain, containing 33 questions on current clinical practice, available resources, and current limitations in the follow-up of patients with PsA. The results were discussed in regional meetings and 105 strategies were proposed and finally evaluated by 85 experts in a Delphi consensus. The most important limitations in the follow-up of PsA were lack of consultation time, lack of nursing staff, and delays in performing imaging tests. A total of 108 strategies were proposed related to the assessment of quality of life and disease-impact indices; comorbidities and extra-articular manifestations; laboratory tests; imaging tests; physical examination and metrology; and activity and function indices. Of the total, 53 were considered highly advisable, with no regional differences in consensus values. The proposals offered in the current study are applicable to the entire country, respond to the unmet needs detected in the initial survey, form a minimum action framework, and ensure optimal follow-up of patients with PsA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A pesar de la evidencia, existen dudas sobre el posicionamiento de apremilast en el algoritmo de tratamiento de la artritis psoriásica (APs). El objetivo del presente proyecto fue recoger la evidencia científica y la experiencia de un grupo de reumatólogos expertos en el manejo de la APs sobre el uso de apremilast en la práctica clínica en España. Un comité científico formado por 6 expertos propuso 5 escenarios clínicos donde la evidencia sobre el uso de apremilast en APs era controvertida: 1) eficacia en APs periférica; 2) eficacia en entesitis y dactilitis; 3) eficacia en APs con afectación cutánea; 4) comorbilidades, y 5) seguridad de apremilast. Tras esto, un panel de 17 reumatólogos expertos en el tratamiento de la APs discutió estos escenarios y generó un cuestionario con 50 preguntas y 156 ítems según metodología Delphi, el cual fue respondido de forma anónima por los panelistas. Tras 2 rondas de votación, el panel de expertos alcanzó el consenso en 93 de los 156 ítems planteados (59,6%) (67 apropiados y 26 inapropiados). El grado de consenso fue del 53,3% en el área de «Eficacia en APs periférica»; del 60,0% en «Eficacia en entesitis y dactilitis»; del 50,0% en «Eficacia en APs con afectación cutánea»; del 57,1% en «Manejo de las comorbilidades en pacientes con APs», y del 67,3% en «Implicaciones de la seguridad en el uso de apremilast». La opinión estructurada de los expertos complementa la evidencia disponible y contribuye al establecimiento de pautas consensuadas para el uso de apremilast en APs. Despite the evidence, there are doubts about the positioning of apremilast in the psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment algorithm. The objective of this project was to collect the scientific evidence and the experience of a group of rheumatologists who are experts in the management of PsA with apremilast in clinical practice in Spain. A scientific committee made up of 6 experts proposed 5 clinical scenarios where the evidence on the use of apremilast in PsA was controversial: 1) efficacy in peripheral PsA; 2) efficacy in enthesitis and dactylitis; 3) efficacy in PsA with skin involvement; 4) comorbidities, and 5) apremilast safety. After this, a panel of 17 rheumatologists with expertise in PsA management discussed these scenarios and generated a questionnaire with 50 questions and 156 items following the Delphi methodology. This questionnaire was anonymously answered by the panel. After 2 voting rounds, the panel of experts reached consensus in 93 of the 156 items raised (59.6%) (67 appropiate and 26 inappropiate). The degree of consensus was 53.3% in the area of "Efficacy in peripheral PsA"; 60.0% in "Efficacy in enthesitis and dactylitis"; 50.0% in "Efficacy in PsA with skin involvement"; 57.1% in "Management of comorbidities in patients with PsA", and 67.3% in "Implications of safety in the use of apremilast". The structured opinion of the experts complements the available evidence and contributes to the establishment of consensual guidelines for the use of apremilast in PsA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Reumatología Clínica is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: To analyze the performance of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) screening tools, examine their implementation in daily practice, and reach a consensus about the best screening tool for implementation in daily practice in different medical settings. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR), structured telephone interviews to hospitals, and a multidisciplinary nominal group meeting were all conducted. The SLR employed sensitive search strategies using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2020. Two reviewers independently selected articles that reported data on PsA screening tools and that included sufficient data to at least calculate the sensitivity and specificity of those tools (e.g., questionnaires, algorithms, specific questions, and biomarkers). The hospital interviews collected data regarding the process of suspected PsA diagnosis and referral to rheumatology, the implementation of PsA screening tools, and barriers and facilitators to implementation of those tools. In the nominal group meeting, a multidisciplinary team of experts discussed all these data and subsequently recommended a screening tool for implementation. Results: The SLR included 41 moderate-quality studies that analyzed 14 PsA screening tools, most of which were questionnaire-based tools. All of these studies reported a moderate-good performance but presented different characteristics regarding the time to completion or the number and type of items or questions. The implementation of screening tools was low (30.5%). The experts ultimately recommended regular use of a PsA screening tool, preferably the PURE-4 questionnaire. Conclusions: The implementation of PsA screening tools like the PURE-4 questionnaire in daily practice likely improves the prognosis of PsA patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: SPIRIT head-to-head (H2H) is a 52-week (Wk) trial comparing ixekizumab (IXE) with adalimumab (ADA) for simultaneous American College of Rheumatology (ACR)50 and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)100 responses in 566 patients (distributed evenly across both groups) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). IXE was superior to ADA for this primary end point at Wk24. We aimed to determine the final efficacy and safety results through Wk52 including a prespecified subgroup analysis of concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARD) use.Methods: SPIRIT-H2H is a Wk52 multicentre, open-label, blinded-assessor study comparing IXE and ADA in bionaïve patients with PsA. Patients were randomised 1:1 to IXE or ADA with stratification by concomitant csDMARD use and presence of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Prespecified end points at Wk24 and Wk52 included musculoskeletal, psoriasis, quality-of life outcomes, subgroup analyses and safety.Results: A significantly higher proportion of patients treated with IXE versus ADA simultaneously achieved ACR50 and PASI100 (39% vs 26%, p<0.001), PASI100 (64% vs 41%, p<0.001) at Wk52. Efficacy of IXE and ADA was similar at Wk52 for ACR50 (49.8% vs 49.8%, p=0.924), treat-to-target outcomes, enthesitis and dactylitis resolution. Responses to IXE were consistent irrespective of concomitant csDMARD use. Significantly more patients on IXE monotherapy versus ADA monotherapy had simultaneous ACR50 and PASI100 (38% vs 19%, p=0.007), and PASI100 responses (66% vs 35%, p<0.001) at Wk52. There were no new safety findings for IXE or ADA.Conclusions: IXE provided significantly greater simultaneous joint and skin improvement than ADA through Wk52 in bionaïve patients with PsA. IXE showed better efficacy on psoriasis and performed at least as well as ADA on musculoskeletal manifestations. IXE efficacy was consistent irrespective of concomitant csDMARD use.Trial Registration Number: NCT03151551. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resumen Objetivo 1. Describir la información que reciben o buscan los pacientes con espondiloartritis axial y artritis psoriásica. 2. Analizar fórmulas para mejorar la misma. Métodos Análisis cualitativo del discurso en grupos focales (con pacientes asociados y no asociados y reumatólogos) para identificar los elementos que configuran la realidad estudiada, describir las relaciones entre ellos y sintetizar el resultado mediante: 1) segmentación según criterios temáticos; 2) categorización en función de situaciones, relaciones, opiniones, sentimientos u otras; 3) codificación de las diversas categorías, y 4) interpretación de los resultados. Se diseñaron casilleros tipológicos para asegurar la máxima representatividad de la muestra. Resultados El reumatólogo es la principal fuente de información. Las asociaciones de pacientes juegan un papel fundamental y son muy bien valoradas. Internet se consulta con mucha cautela por falta de filtro. Son temas de interés las características de la enfermedad y sus tratamientos, pero también la evolución, el pronóstico y las ayudas sociales, administrativas y de otra índole. Se necesita más información (objetiva y constructiva, no catastrofista), que debe darse de forma progresiva y adaptada a las características y necesidades del paciente. Existen áreas de mejora y de oportunidad que incluyen: la estandarización y actualización de contenidos (basados en la evidencia) y la optimización de materiales (escritos, electrónicos) y de otros recursos, como enfermería o atención primaria. Conclusiones El reumatólogo es la fuente de referencia y de veracidad en relación con la información proporcionada a pacientes con espondiloartritis axial y artritis psoriásica. Se precisan cambios en cuanto al contenido, el formato y las fuentes de información. Abstract Objective 1. To describe the information provided to, or inquired about, by patients with axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis. 2. To analyze improvements. Methods Analysis of the discourse of focus groups (with patients, some of them from patient associations, and rheumatologists). The discussion included the identification of elements that shape the reality being studied, describing the relationship among them and summarizing the results by: 1) thematic segmentation; 2) categorization according to situations, relationships, opinions, feelings or others; 3) coding of the various categories, and 4) interpretation of results. Representativeness was ensured by using a typological framework. Results Rheumatologists are the main source of information. Patient associations have a fundamental role and are well-regarded. Internet is used with caution due to its limited reliability. Patients are interested in: disease characteristics and treatments, the course and prognosis, and social, administrative and other kinds of support. More information is needed (objective and constructive, avoiding a catastrophic tone); it should be provided progressively, adjusted to patients features and needs. There are areas for improvement including: the standardization and updating of contents (based on scientific evidence), the optimization of informative materials (written, electronic), and other resources such as nursing and primary care. Conclusions Rheumatologists are the main and most reliable source of information for patients with spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Patient associations have an important role and are well-regarded. Changes in the content, format and sources of information are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Variation at PDE3A-SLCO1C1 locus has been recently associated with the response to anti-TNF therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. We undertook the present study to determine whether PDE3A-SLCO1C1 is also associated with the response to anti-TNF therapy in psoriatic arthritis. Patients & methods: Genomic DNA was obtained from 81 psoriatic arthritis patients that had been treated with anti-TNF therapy. PDE3A-SLCO1C1 SNP rs3794271 was genotyped using Taqman realt-time PCR. The clinical response to anti-TNF therapy was measured as the change from baseline in the level of disease activity according to the DAS28 score. Results: A significant association between rs3794271 and anti-TNF response in psoriatic arthritis was found (beta = -0.71; p = 0.0036). Conclusion: PDE3A-SLCO1C1 locus is also associated with response to anti-TNF therapy in psoriatic arthritis. Original submitted 12 May 2014; Revision submitted 18 August 2014 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and objectives: Up to 30% of patients with psoriasis develop joint disease, the course of which can be improved by early diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this study was to describe our experience with a new multidisciplinary psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis unit over a period of 4 years (2009-2012). Material and methods: Implementation of a PSOriasis Rheumatology and Dermatology unit (PSORD) to provide patient care and physician training. In the first phase of the project, referral criteria for the unit were defined and several meetings were organized to train and prepare the specialists involved in the program. In the second phase, a schedule was drawn up for monthly patient visits with the PSORD team. Starting in 2011, training was offered to dermatologists and rheumatologists from other hospitals interested in implementing a similar model. Results: A total of 259 visits (71% first visits, 8% no-shows) were scheduled during the period analyzed, with a median of 8 visits (range, 2-14 visits) per session. Sixty-three percent of the patients were referred from the rheumatology department. Diagnosis and treatment were modified in 32% and 47% of cases, respectively. Three training courses were held with 15 physicians from 6 hospitals, 3 of which created similar units. Conclusions: The PSORD model improved the management of difficult-to-diagnose and/or uncontrolled disease, the early diagnosis and treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and collaboration between dermatologists and rheumatologists. Finally, the model lends itself to being exported to other settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, including health-related quality-of-life (HRQL), in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods: 287 patients from 18 Spanish centres were assessed. PsA severity was measured using the following criteria: (1) Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI score 0-72, from low to high severity); (2) number of swollen and tender joints; and (3) Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ score 0-3 from low to high impairment in daily activities). HRQL assessment was performed using the following criteria: (a) EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D scores 1-3, with a higher score representing a worse HRQL), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS score 0-100, with a higher score representing a better HQRL) and (b) Short Form-36 (SF-36 score 0-100, with a higher score representing a better HRQL). Results: 24.7% of patients were treated with infliximab. In the two groups, 55.7% of the patients were male with a mean age of 52.40 ± 12.53 years. The average number of swollen joints was higher in patients not receiving biological therapy than in those receiving treatment (2.98 vs. 1.54). The mean PASI score was 3.73 ± 5.83, and there was no difference between groups. HAQ scores were higher in patients receiving infliximab than in those not receiving treatment (0.93 vs. 0.70). The mean EQ-5D scores in the two groups indicated a poorer status based on pain and inability to perform usual/daily activities. HRQL measured by VAS score mean was 60.41 ± 20.08, and there was no difference between the groups. The domains in the SF-36 suggesting poorer functioning in the two groups were the physical role (50.76 ± 43.43), physical pain (49.35 ± 25.69) and the overall physical component (37.88 ± 10.87). Conclusions: PsA is associated with an impaired HRQL characterised by physical pain and poorer functioning in daily activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Making a differential diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is not straightforward. This is partly because of its heterogeneous presentation and partly because many patients with PsA are initially diagnosed with psoriasis and treated in primary care or by dermatologists, with referral to rheumatologists being delayed. Once diagnosed, optimal disease control requires frequent specialist monitoring, adjustment or switching of therapies, and management of comorbidities and concomitant diseases, as well as attention to patients' overall well-being. Given the breadth of expertise that diagnosis and management of PsA requires, we sought to define a collaborative, structured framework that supports the optimisation of multidisciplinary care for patients with PsA in Europe.Methods: An expert panel comprising four rheumatologists, three dermatologists, two specialist nurses and one psychologist-from Spain, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Germany, France and Italy-met face-to-face to take part in a modified Delphi exercise.Results: The result of this exercise is a set of recommendations that are based on combining published evidence with the panel's extensive clinical experience. Recommendations can be implemented in a number of ways, but the central call-to-action of this framework is the need for improved collaboration between dermatologists (or primary care physicians) and rheumatologists. This could occur in a variety of different formats: standard referral pathways, multidisciplinary physician meetings to discuss patient cases, or 'one stop', combined clinics.Conclusion: We anticipate that when the majority of patients with PsA receive regular multidisciplinary care, improved patient outcomes will follow, although robust research is needed to explore this assumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]