Search

IMPORTANCE: Treatment options for psoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have evolved significantly throughout the era of biologics. Clinical trials are inadequate to assess the relative long-term efficacy of biologics and are often insufficient regarding safety. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term persistence of different biologic classes to treat PsO and PsA. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This nationwide cohort study involved the administrative health care database of the French health insurance scheme linked to the hospital discharge database. All adults with PsO and PsA who were new users of biologics (not in the year before the index date) from January 1, 2015, to May 31, 2019, were included and followed up through December 31, 2019. Patients hospitalized for PsA in the PsO cohort and for PsO in the PsA cohort in the year before the index date were excluded. Data were analyzed from June 1 to October 31, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Persistence was defined as the time from biologic therapy initiation to discontinuation and was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of persistence by biologic class involved using propensity score–weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models and adjustment on specific systemic nonbiologics (time-dependent variables). RESULTS: A total of 16 892 patients with PsO were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 48.5 [13.8] years; 9152 men [54.2%] men). Of these, 10 199 patients (60.4%) started therapy with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor; 3982 (23.6%), with an interleukin 12 and interleukin 23 (IL-12/23) inhibitor; and 2711 (16.0%), with an interleukin 17 (IL-17) inhibitor. An additional 6531 patients with PsA (mean [SD] age, 49.1 [12.8] years; 3565 [54.6%] women) were included; of these, 4974 (76.2%) started therapy with a TNF inhibitor; 803 (12.3%), with an IL-12/23 inhibitor; and 754 (11.5%), with an IL-17 inhibitor. Overall 3-year persistence rates were 40.9% and 36.2% for PsO and PsA, respectively. After inverse probability of treatment weighting and adjustment, the IL-17 inhibitor was associated with higher persistence compared with the TNF inhibitor for PsO (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.73-0.83]) and PsA (weighted HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.58-0.85]) and compared with the IL-12/23 inhibitor for PsA (weighted HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.55-0.87]). No difference between the IL-17 inhibitor and IL-12/23 inhibitor for PsO was noted. The IL-12/23 inhibitor was associated with higher persistence than the TNF inhibitor for PsO (weighted HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.72-0.80]), with no difference observed for PsA. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this cohort study suggest that IL-17 inhibitors are associated with higher treatment persistence than the TNF inhibitor for PsO and PsA. Interleukin 17 inhibitors were also associated with higher persistence than the IL-12/23 inhibitor for PsA, with no difference for PsO. However, the persistence rates of all biologics remained globally low at 3 years.

Objectives To describe new-onset IBD (new IBD) in patients treated with IL-17 inhibitors (IL-17i), to assess their incidence and to identify their risk factors in real life. Methods A French national registry (MISSIL) aimed to report all cases of new IBD in patients treated with IL-17i from January 2016 to December 2019. Using the estimated number of patients treated by IL-17 in France during the study period, the annual incidence rates of new IBD was reported in IL-17i-treated patients. A case–control study was performed with two controls per new IBD case matched by gender, age and underlying inflammatory disease. Results Thirty-one cases of new IBD under IL-17i were collected: 27 patients treated for spondyloarthritis and four patients for psoriasis. All were observed with secukinumab (SEK). The median time to onset of new IBD symptoms was 4.0 (1.5–7.5) months. SEK was discontinued in all patients. The evolution was favourable with complete resolution (17/31), improvement (7/31) or stabilization (5/31). Two patients died: one due to a massive myocardial infarction and one due to post-colectomy complications. The incidence of new IBD decreased from 0.69/100 patient-years [PY] (7/1010) in 2016 to 0.08/100 PY (6/7951) in 2019. No previous treatment with etanercept (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.14–0.80, P = 0.014) and low number of previous biologic therapies (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.94, P = 0.021) were significantly associated with new IBD. Conclusion The incidence of new IBD was low and decreased from 2016 to 2019. The outcome was favourable in 24 out of 31 patients, but two patients died.

International audience

Objective The factors contributing to long-term remission in axial SpA (axSpA) are unclear. We aimed to characterize individuals with axSpA at the 5-year follow-up to identify baseline factors associated with remission. Methods We included all patients from the DESIR cohort (with recent-onset axSpA) with an available Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score–CRP (ASDAS-CRP) at 5-year follow-up. Patients in remission (ASDAS-CRP Results Overall, 111/449 patients (25%) were in remission after 5 years. Among those never exposed to TNFi, 31% (77/247) were in remission compared with 17% (34/202) of those exposed to TNFi. Patients in remission after 5 years were more likely to be male, HLA-B27+, have a lower BMI, and a higher education level. Baseline factors associated with 5-year remission in patients never exposed to TNFi included lower BASDAI [adjusted odds ratio (ORa) 0.9, 95% CI: 0.8, 0.9) and history of peripheral arthritis (ORa 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2, 5.3). In those exposed to TNFi, remission was associated with higher education level (ORa 2.9, 95% CI: 1.6, 5.1), lower enthesitis index (ORa 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7, 0.9), lower BASDAI (ORa 0.9, 95% CI: 0.9, 0.9) and lower BMI (ORa 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7, 0.9). Conclusion This study highlights the difficulty in achieving 5-year remission in those with recent-onset axSpA, especially for the more active cases, despite the use of TNFi. Socio-economic factors and BMI are implicated in the outcome at 5 years.

Resume Objectif Proposer une liste de variables a collecter des le diagnostic et tout au long du suivi des patients atteints de spondyloarthrite axiale (SpA axiale) pour optimiser leur prise en charge en routine. Methodes Le processus s’est deroule en plusieurs etapes : (1) estimation de l’interet de 51 variables proposees pour l’evaluation de la SpA axiale via une recherche systematique dans la litterature ; (2) consensus de 78 rhumatologues hospitaliers ou de ville notant chaque variable selon un bareme de 4 points de « Peu utile/Inutile » a « Indispensable » ; (3) consensus sur la frequence minimale d’evaluation des variables selectionnees selon un bareme de 5 points allant de « A chaque consultation » a « Jamais systematiquement ». Resultats La recherche systematique a identifie 14 133 resumes dont 213 ont ete inclus dans la synthese qualitative finale. Les donnees a collecter lors du bilan systematique initial comprenaient cinq questionnaires patient auto-administres, trois variables de l’entretien avec le medecin, deux variables de l’examen physique, deux variables de l’imagerie specifique a la SpA axiale et deux autres examens. La collecte systematique a ete recommandee a chaque visite pour deux variables, deux fois par an pour une variable, une fois par an pour six variables et tous les deux ans pour une variable. Conclusions Cette initiative a utilise des approches fondees sur des preuves et sur un consensus d’experts pour definir un ensemble de base de variables a collecter et a consigner immediatement apres le diagnostic et pendant le suivi de routine des patients atteints de SpA axiale.

Trajectories of comorbidities in psoriasis patients: a question to be answered

ObjectiveTo develop and validate a patient knowledge questionnaire regarding axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).MethodsKnowledge considered essential for patients with axSpA was identified through Delphi rounds among rheumatologists, healthcare professionals (HCPs), and patients, then reformulated to develop the knowledge questionnaire. Cross-sectional validation was performed in 14 rheumatology departments to assess internal validity (Kuder-Richardson coefficient), external validity, acceptability, reproducibility (Lin concordance correlation coefficient), and sensitivity to change (knowledge score before vs after patient education sessions and effect size).ResultsThe Spondyloarthritis Knowledge Questionnaire (SPAKE) is a self-administered 42-item questionnaire with a 32-item short form, both scored 0 to 100, assessing knowledge of disease, comorbidities, pharmacological treatments, nonpharmacological treatments, self-care, and adaptive skills. In the validation study (130 patients; 67 [51.5%] male, mean age 43.5 [SD 12.9] yrs), the mean (SD) score of the long-form questionnaire was 71.6 (15.4), with higher scores (better knowledge) in nonpharmacological treatments and adaptive skills and lower scores in cardiovascular comorbidity and pharmacological treatments. Acceptability was good, with no missing data; the internal validity coefficient was 0.85. Reproducibility was good (0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.89). SPAKE showed good sensitivity to change; scores were 69.2 (15.3) then 82.7 (14.0) after patient education sessions (Hedges effect size = 0.92, 95% CI 0.52-1.31).ConclusionSPAKE is a knowledge questionnaire for patients with axSpA, developed with the involvement of HCPs and patients and reflecting current recommendations for the management of axSpA. SPAKE will be useful in assessing knowledge acquisition and self-management strategies in routine care and research.

Paradoxical reactions (PRs) are defined as the occurrence during biologic therapy of a pathological condition that usually responds to these drugs.To estimate the incidence of PRs and identify risk factors.Multicentre study of the database for the Greater Paris University Hospitals, including biologic-naive patients receiving anti-tumour necrosis factor-α, anti-interleukin-12/23, anti-interleukin-17 or anti-α4β7-integrin agents for psoriasis, inflammatory rheumatism or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We used natural language processing algorithms to extract data. A cohort and a case-control study nested in the cohort with controls selected by incidence density sampling was used to identify risk factors.Most of the 9303 included patients (median age 43·0, 53·8% women) presented an IBD (3773, 40·6%) or a chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease (3708, 39·9%), and 8489 (91·3%) received anti-TNF-α agents. A total of 297 (3·2%) had a PR. The global incidence rate was 7·6 per 1000 person-years [95% confidence interval (CI) 6·8-8·5]. The likelihood of PR was associated with IBD [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1·9, 95% CI 1·1-3·2, P = 0·021] and a combination of at least two inflammatory diseases (aOR 6·1, 95% CI 3·6-10·6, P 0·001) and was reduced with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and corticosteroids (aOR 0·6, 95% CI 0·4-0·8, P = 0·002; and OR 0·4, 95% CI 0·2-0·6, P = 0·002, respectively).The likelihood of PRs was associated with IBD or a combination of a least two inflammatory diseases. More studies are needed to assess the benefit of systematically adding csDMARDs for such high-risk patients. What is already known about this topic? Most published studies about paradoxical reactions concern paradoxical psoriasis in patients receiving anti-tumour necrosis factor-α agents. Few data are available for other paradoxical reactions and the most recent biologics. What does this study add? Risk of paradoxical reactions was increased with inflammatory bowel disease and a combination of at least two inflammatory diseases. Risk of paradoxical reactions was reduced with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or corticosteroid therapy, which could be added for high-risk patients.

To evaluate the impact of a nurse-led program of systematic screening for the management (detection/prevention) of comorbidities.Prospective, randomized, controlled, open, 12-month trial (NCT02374749).consecutive patients with axial Spondyloarthritis (axSpA) (according to the rheumatologist) THE PROGRAM: A nurse collected data on comorbidities during a specific outpatient visit. In the event of non-agreement with recommendations, the patient was informed and a specific recommendation was given to the patient (orally and in a with a detailed written report). Patients were seen after one year in a nurse-led visit. TREATMENT ALLOCATION: random allocation (i.e. either this program or an educational program not presented here and considered here as the control group).change after one year of a weighted comorbidity management score (0 to 100 where 0= optimal management).502 patients were included (252 and 250 in the active and control groups, respectively): age: 47±12 years, male gender: 63%, disease duration: 14±11y. After one year, no differences were observed in a weighted comorbidity management score. However, the number of patients in agreement with recommendations was significantly higher in the active group for vaccinations (flu vaccination: 28.6% vs. 9.9%, p0.01; pneumococcal vaccination:40.0% vs. 21.1%,p=0.04), for cancer screening (skin cancer screening: 36.3% vs. 17.2%, p=0.04) and for osteoporosis (bone densitometry performed: 22.6% vs. 8.7%, p0.01; Vitamin D supplementation initiation: 51.9% vs. 9.4%, p0.01).This study suggests the short-term benefit of a single-visit nurse-led program for systematic screening of comorbidities for its management in agreement with recommendations, even in this young population of patients with axSpA.

Objective Several biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) have demonstrated anti-inflammatory effects in PsA. However, their comparative cardiovascular safety profiles remain unknown. We evaluated the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in PsA patients on therapy with different classes of bDMARDs and apremilast. Methods This nationwide cohort study involved the administrative healthcare database of the French health insurance scheme linked to the hospital discharge database. All adults with PsA who were new users of bDMARDs/apremilast (neither in the year before the index date) during 2015–19 were included. Patients with previous cardiovascular diseases were excluded. End of follow-up was 31 December 2019. The primary endpoint was an occurrence of MACEs in a time-to-event analysis with propensity score-weighted Cox and Fine–Gray models. Results Between 2015 and 2019, we included 9510 bDMARD new users [mean age 48.5 (s.d. 12.7) years; 42% men], including 7289 starting a TNF inhibitor, 1058 an IL-12/23 inhibitor and 1163 an IL-17 inhibitor, with 1885 apremilast new users [mean age 54.0 (s.d. 12.5) years; 44% men]. MACEs occurred in 51 (0.4%) patients. After propensity score weighting, the risk of MACEs was significantly greater with IL-12/23 (weighted hazard ratio 2.0, 95% CI 1.3, 3.0) and IL-17 (weighted hazard ratio 1.9, 95% CI 1.2, 3.0) inhibitors than TNF inhibitors, with no significant increased risk with apremilast (weighted hazard ratio 1.3, 95% CI 0.8, 2.2). Similar results were observed with the Fine–Gray competing risks survival model. Conclusion Analysis of a large database revealed a small overall number of MACEs, and the risk of MACEs was greater for PsA new users of IL-12/23 and IL-17 vs TNF inhibitors.

Objective To compare the sensitivity to change of different imaging scoring methods in patients with early axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Methods Patients from the Devenir des Spondylarthropathies Indiffererenciees Recentes (DESIR) cohort fulfilling the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for axial SpA were included. Radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the sacroiliac (SI) joints and spine were obtained at baseline, 1, 2, and 5 years. Each image was scored by 2 or 3 readers in 3 separate reading waves. The rate of change of outcomes measuring inflammation of the spine and SI joints (e.g., Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada [SPARCC] score) and structural damage on MRI (e.g., >= 3 fatty lesions) and radiographs (e.g., modified New York grading) was assessed using multilevel generalized estimating equation models (taking all readers and waves into account). To allow comparisons across outcomes, rates were standardized (difference between the individual's value and the population mean divided by the SD). Results In total, 345 patients were included. Inflammation detected on MRI of the SI joints (MRI-SI joints) (standardized rate range -0.278, -0.441) was more sensitive to change compared to spinal inflammation (range -0.030, -0.055). Structural damage in the SI joints showed a higher standardized rate of change on MRI-SI joints (range 0.015, 0.274) compared to radiography of the SI joints (range 0.043, 0.126). MRI-SI joints damage defined by >= 3 fatty lesions showed the highest sensitivity to change (0.274). Spinal structural damage slowly progressed over time with no meaningful difference between radiographic (range 0.037, 0.043) and MRI structural outcomes (range 0.008, 0.027). Conclusion Structural damage assessed in pelvic radiographs has low sensitivity to change, while fatty lesions detected on MRI-SI joints are a promising alternative. In contrast, MRI of the spine is not better than radiography of the spine in detecting structural changes in patients with early axial SpA.

Objective To test the impact of inflammation on structural changes occurring in the sacroiliac (SI) joints and the spine detected on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods Patients with early axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) from the Devenir des Spondylarthropathies Indiffererenciees Recentes (DESIR) cohort were included. MRIs of the SI joints (MRI-SI joints) and spine (MRI-spine), obtained at baseline, 2 years, and 5 years, were scored by 3 central readers. Inflammation and structural damage on MRI-SI joints and MRI-spine were defined by the agreement of >= 2 of 3 readers (binary outcomes) and by the average of 3 readers (continuous outcomes). The effect of inflammation (MRI-SI joints/MRI-spine) on damage (MRI-SI joints/MRI-spine, respectively) was evaluated in 2 models: 1) a baseline prediction model (the effect of baseline inflammation on damage assessed at 5 years); and 2) a longitudinal model (the effect of inflammation on structural damage assessed during a 5-year period). Results A total of 202 patients were included. Both the presence of bone marrow edema on MRI-SI joints and on MRI-spine at baseline were predictive of 5-year damage (>= 3 fatty lesions) on MRI-SI joints (odds ratio [OR] 4.2 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.4, 7.3]) and MRI-spine (OR 10.7 [95% CI 2.4, 49.0]), respectively, when adjusted for C-reactive protein level. The association was also confirmed in longitudinal models (when adjusted for Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score) both in the SI joints (OR 5.1 [95% CI 2.7, 9.6]) and spine (OR 15.6 [95% CI 4.8, 50.3]). Analysis of other structural outcomes (i.e., erosions) on MRI-SI joints yielded similar results. In the spine, a significant association was found for fatty lesions but not for erosions and bone spurs, which occurred infrequently over time. Conclusion We found a predictive and longitudinal association between inflammation detected on MRI and several types of structural damage detected on MRI in patients with early axial SpA, which adds to the evidence for a causal relationship.

IntroductionTumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) agents are most often the first-choice biological treatment for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). When their discontinuation is needed, a switch to another TNFi or to another therapeutic class may be considered. However, data supporting one approach over another are lacking.ObjectiveTo compare the long-term persistence of classes of biologics in PsA patients with prior TNFi exposure.MethodsThis nationwide cohort study involved the administrative healthcare database of the French health insurance scheme linked to the hospital discharge database. We included all adults with PsA starting a second-line biological after discontinuing a TNFi during 2015–2020. Persistence was defined as the time from biological initiation to discontinuation and was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of persistence by biological class was performed with Poisson regression models with time divided into 6-month intervals.ResultsWe included 2975 patients: 1580 (53%) initiating a second TNFi, 426 (14%) an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor (IL-12/23i) and 969 (33%) an IL-17 inhibitor (IL-17i). Overall, 1-year and 3-year persistence rates were 42% and 17%, respectively. After adjustment, persistence was associated with treatment with an IL-17i (adjusted relative risk (RRa) 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.87) or IL-12/23i (RRa0.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.79) vs a TNFi, with no significant difference between IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors (RRa0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.02).ConclusionsOverall, this real-life study shows low persistence for all biologics at 3 years in PsA patients previously exposed to a TNFi. However, persistence was higher with an IL-17i or IL-12/23i than a TNFi.

ObjectivesTo compare the clinical manifestations, disease activity and disease burden between patients with radiographic (r-axSpA) and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) over a 5-year follow-up period in the Devenir des Spondylarthropathies Indifferénciées Récentes (DESIR) cohort.MethodsPatients from the DESIR cohort who had X-ray images of the sacroiliac joints available at baseline and did not leave the study during the 5-year follow-up period because of a diagnosis other than axSpA were included. A unilateral rating of ‘obvious sacroiliitis’ by the local reader was considered sufficient for classification as r-axSpA. The incidence of first episodes of peripheral and extra-rheumatic manifestations was compared between the two groups using the incidence rate ratio and Cox regressions adjusted for sex, age and tumour necrosis factor blocker (TNFb) intake. Mean values of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and days of sick leave over 5 years of follow-up were compared using mixed models adjusted for sex, age, TNFb intake and baseline values.ResultsIn total, 669 patients were included, of whom 185 (27.7%) and 484 (72.3%) were classified as r-axSpA and nr-axSpA, respectively. At baseline, the r-axSpA patients showed a significantly higher prevalence of males. After adjusting for age, sex and TNFb intake, Cox regressions for peripheral and extra-rheumatic manifestations did not show any significant differences between groups. Mixed models also showed similar mean levels in PROs and days of sick leave between groups over time.ConclusionThe incidence of peripheral and extra-rheumatic manifestations as well as the disease burden over time remained similar between r-axSpA and nr-axSpA groups after adjusting for intermediate variables.Trial registration numberNCT01648907

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ., Objectives: To determine factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic diseases. Methods: Physician-reported registry of adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19 (from 24 March to 1 July 2020). The primary outcome was COVID-19-related death. Age, sex, smoking status, comorbidities, rheumatic disease diagnosis, disease activity and medications were included as covariates in multivariable logistic regression models. Analyses were further stratified according to rheumatic disease category. Results: Of 3729 patients (mean age 57 years, 68% female), 390 (10.5%) died. Independent factors associated with COVID-19-related death were age (66-75 years: OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.22; >75 years: 6.18, 4.47 to 8.53; both vs ≤65 years), male sex (1.46, 1.11 to 1.91), hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease (1.89, 1.31 to 2.73), chronic lung disease (1.68, 1.26 to 2.25) and prednisolone-equivalent dosage >10 mg/day (1.69, 1.18 to 2.41; vs no glucocorticoid intake). Moderate/high disease activity (vs remission/low disease activity) was associated with higher odds of death (1.87, 1.27 to 2.77). Rituximab (4.04, 2.32 to 7.03), sulfasalazine (3.60, 1.66 to 7.78), immunosuppressants (azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, ciclosporin, mycophenolate or tacrolimus: 2.22, 1.43 to 3.46) and not receiving any disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) (2.11, 1.48 to 3.01) were associated with higher odds of death, compared with methotrexate monotherapy. Other synthetic/biological DMARDs were not associated with COVID-19-related death. Conclusion: Among people with rheumatic disease, COVID-19-related death was associated with known general factors (older age, male sex and specific comorbidities) and disease-specific factors (disease activity and specific medications). The association with moderate/high disease activity highlights the importance of adequate disease control with DMARDs, preferably without increasing glucocorticoid dosages. Caution may be required with rituximab, sulfasalazine and some immunosuppressants.

Objectives To evaluate the characteristics of patients (pts) with PsA treated by ustekinumab (UST) or secukinumab (SEK) and to compare real-world persistence of UST and SEK in PsA. Methods In this retrospective, national, multicentre cohort study, pts with PsA (CASPAR criteria or diagnosis confirmed by the rheumatologist) initiating UST or SEK with a follow-up ≥6 months were included from January 2011 to April 2019. The persistence between SEK and UST was assessed after considering the potential confounding factors by using pre-specified propensity-score methods. Causes of discontinuation and tolerance were also collected. Results A total of 406 pts were included: 245 with UST and 161 with SEK. The persistence rate was lower in the UST group compared with the SEK group [median persistence 9.4 vs 14.7 months; 26.4% vs 38.0% at 2 years; weighted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.92; P =0.015]. In subgroup analysis, the persistence rate of SEK associated with MTX was significantly higher than that of UST associated with MTX: HR = 2.20; 95% CI: 1.30, 3.51; P =0.001, in contrast to SEK vs UST monotherapy: HR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.74, 1.53; P =0.75. Discontinuation due to inefficacy was reported in 91.7% (SEK) and 82.4% (UST) of pts. Discontinuation due to an adverse event was reported in 12.2% (SEK) and 7.7% (UST) of pts. Conclusion In this first study comparing UST and SEK, the persistence of SEK was higher than that of UST in PsA. In subgroup analysis, this difference was only found in association with MTX.

Summary Background Various observations have suggested that the course of COVID-19 might be less favourable in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases receiving rituximab compared with those not receiving rituximab. We aimed to investigate whether treatment with rituximab is associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Methods In this cohort study, we analysed data from the French RMD COVID-19 cohort, which included patients aged 18 years or older with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the severity of COVID-19 in patients treated with rituximab (rituximab group) compared with patients who did not receive rituximab (no rituximab group). Severe disease was defined as that requiring admission to an intensive care unit or leading to death. Secondary objectives were to analyse deaths and duration of hospital stay. The inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method was used to adjust for potential confounding factors (age, sex, arterial hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, body-mass index, interstitial lung disease, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, corticosteroid use, chronic renal failure, and the underlying disease [rheumatoid arthritis vs others]). Odds ratios and hazard ratios and their 95% CIs were calculated as effect size, by dividing the two population mean differences by their SD. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04353609. Findings Between April 15, 2020, and Nov 20, 2020, data were collected for 1090 patients (mean age 55·2 years [SD 16·4]); 734 (67%) were female and 356 (33%) were male. Of the 1090 patients, 137 (13%) developed severe COVID-19 and 89 (8%) died. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, severe disease was observed more frequently (effect size 3·26, 95% CI 1·66–6·40, p=0·0006) and the duration of hospital stay was markedly longer (0·62, 0·46–0·85, p=0·0024) in the 63 patients in the rituximab group than in the 1027 patients in the no rituximab group. 13 (21%) of 63 patients in the rituximab group died compared with 76 (7%) of 1027 patients in the no rituximab group, but the adjusted risk of death was not significantly increased in the rituximab group (effect size 1·32, 95% CI 0·55–3·19, p=0·53). Interpretation Rituximab therapy is associated with more severe COVID-19. Rituximab will have to be prescribed with particular caution in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Funding None.

Axial Spondyloarthritis (ax-SpA) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)-specific deaths. We aimed to assess the prevalence of left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic dysfunction and valvular heart disease (VHD) by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in ax-SpA patients without history of CVD.A systematic literature review was performed in PUBMED, Embase, Cochrane Library databases published before April 2020. We included all controlled studies assessing myocardial function and heart valve by TTE in ax-SpA without history of CVD. A meta-analysis was performed with random or fixed effects model estimating mean differences (MD) and odds ratio (OR).Literature search selected 189 abstracts and 28 articles were included (1471 ax-SpA and 1115 controls). ax-SpA had a statistically slight alteration of LV ejection fraction (MD=0.64%, 95%CI: 0.14-1.14). ax-SpA had more frequently LV diastolic dysfunction (OR=3.43, 95%CI: 1.78-6.59) and an alteration of E/A ratio (MD=0.15, 95%CI: 0.08-0.21), deceleration time (MD=13.07ms, 95%CI: 7.75-18.40), isovolumetric relaxation time (MD=7.90ms, 95%CI: 4.50-11.30), left-ventricular end diastolic (MD=0.57mm, 95%CI: 0.19-0.95) and systolic (MD=0.77mm, 95%CI: 0.36-1.17) diameters. Three studies (15%) used a combination of TTE parameters to diagnose LV diastolic dysfunction. Prevalence of mitral regurgitation and aortic regurgitation were similar in ax-SpA patients and healthy individuals.ax-SpA have a non-clinically relevant alteration of LV ejection fraction and similar prevalence of VHD compared to healthy individuals. LV diastolic TTE parameters are altered in ax-SpA. However, most studies do not combine set of parameters to recognize diastolic dysfunction. The clinical relevance of diastolic dysfunction observed by TTE remains to be determined in future longitudinal studies.

Background Limited information is available on the impact of treatment with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) on structural lesions in patients with recent-onset axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). We compared 2-year structural lesion changes on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) of patients with recent-onset axSpA receiving etanercept in a clinical trial (EMBARK) to similar patients not receiving biologics in a cohort study (DESIR). We also evaluated the relationship between the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and change in MRI structural parameters. Methods The difference between etanercept (EMBARK) and control (DESIR) in the net percentage of patients with structural lesion change was determined using the SpondyloArthritis Research Consortium of Canada SIJ Structural Score, with and without adjustment for baseline covariates. The relationship between sustained ASDAS inactive disease, defined as the presence of ASDAS Results This study included 163 patients from the EMBARK trial and 76 from DESIR. The net percentage of patients with erosion decrease was significantly greater for etanercept vs control: unadjusted: 23.9% vs 5.3%; P = 0.01, adjusted: 23.1% vs 2.9%; P = 0.01. For the patients attaining sustained ASDAS inactive disease on etanercept, erosion decrease was evident in significantly more than erosion increase: 34/104 (32.7%) vs 5/104 (4.8%); P Conclusions These data show that a greater proportion of patients achieved regression of erosion with versus without etanercept. However, the link between achieving sustained ASDAS inactive disease and structural lesion change on MRI could not be clearly established. Trial registration EMBARK: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01258738, Registered 13 December 2010; DESIR: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01648907, Registered 24 July 2012.

Highlights • La SFR a sélectionné les questions les plus critiques auxquelles sont confrontés les rhumatologues dans la prise en charge de leurs patients atteints de maladies rhumatismales pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. • Un groupe de 10 experts composé de membres du conseil de la SFR et du Club Rhumatismes et Inflammations (CRI) a proposé des réponses basées sur l’état des connaissances au mois de mai 2020. • La plupart du temps, il n’y a aucune contre-indication à la mise en place ou à la poursuite d’un traitement par anti-inflammatoires ou DMARD. • En cas de signes suggérant une infection (par le coronavirus ou autre), les traitements doivent être arrêtés, puis rétablis si nécessaire après une période de deux semaines sans aucun symptôme., Contexte Les rhumatologues doivent composer avec la pandémie de COVID-19 dans la prise en charge de leurs patients, ce qui a soulevé de nombreuses interrogations sur l’utilisation des anti-inflammatoires et des traitements de fond antirhumatismaux (DMARD). La Société française de rhumatologie (SFR) a sélectionné les questions les plus critiques pour la pratique quotidienne d’un rhumatologue et un groupe de 10 experts composé de membres du conseil de la SFR et du Club Rhumatismes et Inflammations (CRI) a proposé des réponses basées sur l’état des connaissances au mois de mai 2020. Procédure fondamentale Lorsque les 18 premières questions et déclarations ont été mises à disposition, 1 400 personnes ont consulté la liste des questions fréquemment posées entre le 31 mars et le 12 avril 2020. Seize questions supplémentaires ont ainsi été transmises à la SFR et le conseil y a répondu. Une revue complémentaire a été organisée par e-mail et visioconférence, notamment pour actualiser les déclarations. Cinq des questions, jugées scientifiquement pertinentes, ont été ajoutées à ce document. Chaque réponse a reçu une note finale de 0 à 10, 0 correspondant à l’absence totale d’accord et 10, à un accord sans réserve. La valeur moyenne des votes obtenus par chaque question est présentée comme le degré d’accord (DA) à la suite de chaque réponse. Date de la dernière mise à jour de ce document : 17 avril 2020. Principales observations Selon la littérature scientifique publiée, il n’y a la plupart du temps aucune contre-indication à la mise en place ou à la poursuite d’un traitement par anti-inflammatoires ou DMARD. En cas de signes suggérant une infection (par le coronavirus ou autre), les traitements doivent être arrêtés, puis rétablis si nécessaire après une période de deux semaines sans aucun symptôme. Quelques indices suggèrent que les personnes prenant une dose immunosuppressive de corticoïdes présentent un risque accru de développer une forme sévère de COVID-19. Les infiltrations intra-articulaires de glucocorticoïdes sont autorisées lorsqu’il n’existe pas d’alternative thérapeutique raisonnable et sous réserve de précautions protégeant le patient et le praticien d’une contamination virale, ce qui inclut une information appropriée du patient. Principales conclusions Les données disponibles sur la prise en charge des patients atteints de maladies rhumatismales pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 sont rassurantes et favorables à la poursuite ou à l’instauration de traitements symptomatiques et spécifiques, l’objectif principal demeurant le contrôle de ces maladies même en temps de pandémie.

International audience; Objective: Update the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) recommendations on the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis, including psoriatic arthritis.Methods: Following standardized procedures, a systematic literature review was done by four supervised rheumatology residents based on questions defined by a task force of 16 attending rheumatologists. The findings were reviewed during three working meetings that culminated in each recommendation receiving a grade and the level of agreement among experts being determined.Results: Five general principles and 15 recommendations were developed. They take into account pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures along with treatment methods based on the dominant phenotype present (axial, articular, enthesitis/dactylitis) and the extra-articular manifestations (psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, uveitis). NSAIDs are the first-line pharmacological treatment in the various presentations. Conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) are not indicated in the axial and isolated entheseal forms. If the response to conventional treatment is not adequate, targeted therapies (biologics, synthetics) should be considered; the indications depend on the clinical phenotype and presence of extra-articular manifestations.Conclusion: This update incorporates recent data (published since the prior update in 2018) and the predominant clinical phenotype concept. It aims to help physicians with the everyday management of patients affected by spondyloarthritis, including psoriatic arthritis.

Objective: To assess if an integrated longitudinal analysis using all available imaging data affects the precision of estimates of change in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), with completers analysis as reference standard.Methods: Patients from the DESIR cohort fulfilling the ASAS axSpA criteria were included. Radiographs and MRIs of the sacroiliac joints and spine were obtained at baseline, 1, 2 and 5 years. Each image was scored by 2 or 3 readers in 3 'reading-waves' (or campaigns). Each outcome was analyzed: i. According to a 'combination algorithm' (e.g. '2 out of 30 for binary scores); and ii. Per reader. Change over time was analyzed with generalized estimating equations by 3 approaches: (a)'integrated-analysis' (all patients with >1 score from >1 reader from all waves); (b1)Completers-only analysis (patients with 5-year follow-up, using scores from individual readers); (b2)Completers analysis using a 'combination algorithm' (as (b1) but with combined scores). Approaches (b1) and (b2) were considered the 'reference'.Results: In total, 413 patients were included. The 'integrated analysis' was more inclusive with similar levels of precision of the change estimates as compared to both completers analyses. In fact, for low-incident outcomes (e.g.% mNY-positive over 5-years), an increased incidence was 'captured', with more precision, by the 'integrated analysis' compared to the completers analysis with combined scores (% change/year (95%CI): 1.1 (0.7; 1.5) vs 1.2 (0.5; 1.8), respectively).Conclusion: An efficient and entirely assumption-free 'integrated analysis' does not jeopardize precision of the estimates of change in imaging parameters and may yield increased statistical power for detecting changes with low incidence. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Highlights • The SFR selected the most critical questions Rheumatologists must contend in the management of their patients with rheumatic diseases during COVID-19 pandemic • A group of 10 experts from SFR and CRI boards proposed responses based on the current knowledge of May 2020. • In most circumstances, there is no contraindication to the initiation or continuation of anti-inflammatory drugs as well as DMARDs. • If signs suggestive of infection (coronavirus or other) occurs, treatments should be discontinued and resumed, if necessary, after 2 weeks without any symptoms., Background: Rheumatologists must contend with COVID-19 pandemic in the management of their patients and many questions have been raised on the use of both anti-inflammatory drugs and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD). The French Society of Rheumatology (SFR) selected the most critical ones to the daily practice of a rheumatologist and a group of 10 experts from SFR and Club Rheumatism and Inflammation (CRI) boards proposed responses based on the current knowledge of May 2020. Basic procedure: Following the availability of the first 18 questions and statements, 1400 individuals consulted the frequently asked questions between the March 31, 2020 and April 12, 2020. As a result, 16 additional questions were forwarded to the SFR, and answered by the board. An additional round of review by email and video conference was organized, which included updates of the previous statements. The scientific relevance of 5 of the questions led to their inclusion in this document. Each response received a final assessment on a scale of 0–10 with 0 meaning no agreement whatsoever and 10 being in complete agreement. The mean values of these votes for each question are presented as the levels of agreement (LoA) at the end of each response. This document was last updated on April 17, 2020. Main findings: Based on current scientific literature already published, in most circumstances, there is no contraindication to the initiation or continuation of anti-inflammatory drugs as well as DMARDs. If signs suggestive of infection (coronavirus or other) occurs, treatments should be discontinued and resumed, if necessary, after 2 weeks without any symptoms. Only, some signals suggest that people taking an immunosuppressive dose of corticosteroid therapy are at greater risk of developing severe COVID-19. Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are allowed when there is no reasonable therapeutic alternative, and providing that precautions to protect the patient and the practitioner from viral contamination are adopted, included appropriate information to the patient. Principal conclusions: Currently available data on managing patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic are reassuring and support continuing or initiating symptomatic as well as specific treatments of these diseases, the main target of their management remaining their appropriate control, even during this pandemic.

Resume L’activite du rhumatisme psoriasique doit etre quantifiee pour permettre une prise de decision therapeutique. L’evaluation de l’activite repose sur une evaluation des articulations, de la peau, des symptomes du patient et de l’inflammation biologique. Plusieurs outils ont ete valides, et nous proposons le DAPSA (Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis) en routine et le MDA (Minimal Disease Activity criteria) pour la recherche. Il est important en pratique de tenir compte egalement de la consommation eventuelle d’AINS et/ou de corticoides, de l’existence et de l’activite des manifestations extra-articulaires et de l’evolution radiographique. L’imagerie echographique et IRM peuvent etre utiles lorsque l’evaluation clinique est difficile. Les Patient Reported Outcome (PROs) en dehors de la douleur et de l’appreciation globale permettent d’evaluer le retentissement de la maladie sur le patient.

Resume Le rhumatisme psoriasique (RPso) est un rhumatisme inflammatoire chronique appartenant a la famille des spondyloarthrites avec laquelle il partage de nombreuses caracteristiques cliniques et radiographiques. Cependant, il presente egalement des specificites qui le distinguent des autres spondyloarthrites et qui ont permis la reconnaissance de son existence en tant qu’entite, la mise en place des premiers criteres diagnostiques, ceux de Moll et Wright, puis l’elaboration d’une multitude de criteres de classification, ayant une sensibilite et une specificite variables, dont l’evolution, nourrie des avancees medicales, a finalement abouti aux criteres CASPAR. Toutefois, le RPso reste une maladie complexe aux manifestations variees et heterogenes, et sa distinction avec d’autres pathologies rhumatismales peut s’averer ardue, notamment dans le cas de la polyarthrite rhumatoide qui a longtemps englobe le RPso, et qui peut encore dans certaines situations donner lieu a une confusion voire a des erreurs diagnostiques. Cela peut aussi concerner d’autres arthropathies, comme certaines arthroses digitales erosives evoluees, pouvant mimer une atteinte psoriasique, et ou l’eternelle question reste de savoir s’il s’agit d’un authentique RPso ou bien d’une arthrose erosive avec association accidentelle au psoriasis. L’importance des criteres de classification diagnostique du RPso ne peut donc pas etre ignoree, et l’interet de les perfectionner, en ameliorant leurs sensibilite et specificite, semble capital.