Search

Introduction Effective communication between patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and their physicians is important for optimizing treatment outcomes. We assessed the quality of patient–physician communication in terms of awareness and impact of PsA symptoms, their levels of satisfaction, and their perceptions of communications. Methods A global online survey was conducted by The Harris Poll in adult patients with PsA and physicians managing patients with PsA in eight countries. Participating physicians were either rheumatologists or dermatologists seeing ≥ 10 and ≥ 5 patients with PsA per month, respectively. Patient and physician groups were unmatched. Patient–physician communication was assessed with 35–60 questions regarding discussion topics during consultations, levels of satisfaction with communication, and specific communication issues. Results A total of 1286 patients with PsA (983 and 303 whose primary treating physician was a rheumatologist or dermatologist, respectively) and 1553 physicians (795 rheumatologists and 758 dermatologists) completed the survey. Regardless of whether they were primarily treated by a rheumatologist or dermatologist, most patients reported a social (84% and 81%, respectively) or work (81% and 80%, respectively) impact of PsA, and a major/moderate negative impact on their physical activity levels (79% and 74%, respectively) or emotional/mental wellbeing (69% and 68%, respectively). Physician responses were generally consistent with this; however, physicians often appeared to under-recognize the extent to which PsA affects patients. Most (≥ 85%) patients and physicians were very/somewhat satisfied with their patient–physician communication, and most (≥ 86%) patients were comfortable raising their concerns/fears with their physician. However, > 40% of patients were identified as being at risk of suboptimal communication. These patients were significantly less likely to report their PsA symptoms even when asked, were less comfortable discussing the impacts of PsA with their physician, and were more likely to experience major/moderate impacts of PsA on their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Conclusions Physicians often underestimate the impacts of PsA, compared with patients, and some patients may be at risk of suboptimal communication with their attending physician, which may worsen the HRQoL impacts of PsA. These findings highlight a need for ways to improve communication between patients with PsA and their healthcare providers. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00367-z., Plain Language Summary Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a disease that can cause swollen and painful joints, as well as skin psoriasis. To effectively treat PsA, it is important that doctors and patients communicate well. We used a survey to ask patients with PsA and doctors from around the world about their communications about PsA. We also asked how PsA affects patients’ quality of life. In total, 1286 patients and 1553 doctors took the survey. Most patients said that PsA affected their social and work lives. Similarly, PsA had a negative impact on physical activity and on emotional and/or mental wellbeing in most patients who answered the survey. Doctors answered similarly, but they were generally less likely to recognize how severely PsA can impact patients, compared with patients themselves. Most patients and doctors were happy with their patient–doctor communication, and most patients felt comfortable talking about their worries and/or fears with their doctor. However, some patients (about four out of 10) felt that communication with their doctors was not good; these patients were less likely/comfortable to talk about their PsA symptoms and the impacts of PsA with their doctor. PsA was also more likely to negatively impact these patients’ quality of life. This survey shows that it is important to find ways to improve communication between patients with PsA and their doctors. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00367-z.

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA)–Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Working Group provided updates at the 2020 GRAPPA annual meeting on its work toward developing a core outcome set for PsA. Working groups were set up for the 4 prioritized domains: enthesitis, fatigue, structural damage, and physical function. Two instruments for measurement of physical function were provisionally endorsed: (1) the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index and (2) the physical functioning domain in the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form survey.

Ultrasound (US) is a valuable imaging modality that can accurately identify relevant features of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), such as synovitis, tenosynovitis, and enthesitis. The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) Ultrasound Committee ran a workshop during the annual GRAPPA meeting that was held in July 2020. The group presented the following 3 topics: (1) the transition from psoriasis to PsA and the role of US; (2) the effect of biomechanical forces on the entheses in health and disease, and insight for PsA pathogenesis; and (3) differentiation of enthesitis from pain sensitization: use and limitations of clinical and sonographic evaluation of enthesitis. This article summarizes the key messages from this workshop.

ObjectiveIn patients with psoriatic disease (PsD), we sought serum metabolites associated with cardiovascular (CV) events and investigated whether they could improve CV risk prediction beyond traditional risk factors and the Framingham Risk Score (FRS).MethodsNuclear magnetic resonance metabolomics identified biomarkers for incident CV events in patients with PsD. The association of each metabolite with incident CV events was analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression models first adjusted for age and sex, and subsequently for traditional CV risk factors. Variable selection was performed using penalisation with boosting after adjusting for age and sex, and the FRS.ResultsAmong 977 patients with PsD, 70 patients had incident CV events. In Cox regression models adjusted for CV risk factors, alanine, tyrosine, degree of unsaturation of fatty acids and high-density lipoprotein particles were associated with decreased CV risk. Glycoprotein acetyls, apolipoprotein B and cholesterol remnants were associated with increased CV risk. The age-adjusted and sex-adjusted expanded model with 13 metabolites significantly improved prediction of CV events beyond the model with age and sex alone, with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 79.9 versus 72.6, respectively (p=0.02). Compared with the FRS alone (AUC=73.9), the FRS-adjusted expanded model with 11 metabolites (AUC=75.0, p=0.72) did not improve CV risk discrimination.ConclusionsWe identify novel metabolites associated with the development of CV events in patients with PsD. Further study of their underlying causal role may clarify important pathways leading to CV events in this population.

Objectives The risk of arterial vascular events is increased in patients with psoriatic disease (PsD), however, limited information exists about the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in these patients. We assessed the incidence and risk factors for VTE in patients with PsD. Methods A multicentre cohort study was conducted involving patients with PsD followed prospectively from 1994 to 2020. Information about VTE, including pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT), was obtained from provincial hospitalization databases. The incidence rate and cumulative probability of developing VTE were computed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between risk factors, including comorbidities and disease-related factors, and the first VTE. Results A total 2,433 patients with PsD were analysed with 26 incident VTE (7 DVT alone, 12 PE alone, and 7 both PE and DVT). The incidence rates of the first VTE, DVT, and PE were 12, 6.5, and 8.8 events per 10,000 patient-years, respectively. The cumulative proportion of individuals developing VTE was 4.6% by 80 years of age. Independent predictors for VTE included older age, diabetes mellitus, and corticosteroid usage (all p Conclusion Older patients with PsD, those with diabetes, and those using corticosteroids are at a higher risk of developing VTE. Risk stratification of patients with these identified risk factors for VTE will allow for more individualized patient management and improved medication selection.

ObjectiveAn estimated 40–50% of patients with psoriasis (PsO) have psoriatic nail disease, which is associated with and directly contributes to a greater clinical burden and worse quality of life in these patients. In this review, we examine how recent advances in the use of new diagnostic techniques have led to improved understanding of the link between nail and musculoskeletal manifestations of psoriatic disease (PsD; e.g., enthesitis, arthritis) and we review targeted therapies for nail PsO (NP).MethodsWe performed a literature search to identify which systemic therapies approved for the treatment of PsO and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have been evaluated for the treatment of NP, either as a primary or secondary outcome. A total of 1546 articles were identified on February18, 2019, and evaluated for relevance.ResultsWe included findings from 66 articles on systemic therapies for the treatment of NP in PsD. With several scoring systems available for the evaluation of psoriatic nail disease, including varied subtypes and application of the Nail Psoriasis Area Severity Index, there was a high level of methodological heterogeneity across studies.ConclusionNP is an important predictor of enthesitis, which is associated with the early stages of PsA; therefore, it is important for rheumatologists and dermatologists to accurately diagnose and treat NP to prevent nail damage and potentially delay the onset and progression of joint disease. Further research is needed to address the lack of both standardized NP scoring systems and well-defined treatment guidelines to improve management of PsD.

The concept of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) prevention is gaining increased interest owing to the physical limitation, poor quality of life and low remission rates that are achieved with current therapies for PsA. The psoriasis-to-PsA transition offers a unique opportunity to identify individuals at increased risk of developing PsA and to implement preventive strategies. However, identifying individuals at increased risk of developing PsA is challenging as there is no consensus on how this population should be defined. This Consensus Statement puts forward recommended terminology from the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Clinics Multicenter Advancement Network (PPACMAN) for defining specific subgroups of individuals during the preclinical and early clinical phases of PsA to be used in research studies. Following a three-round Delphi process, consensus was reached for three terms and definitions: ‘increased risk for PsA’, ‘psoriasis with asymptomatic synovio-entheseal imaging abnormalities’ and ‘psoriasis with musculoskeletal symptoms not explained by other diagnosis’. These terms and their definitions will enable improved identification and standardization of study populations in clinical research. In the future, as increasing evidence emerges regarding the molecular and clinical features of the psoriasis-to-PsA continuum, these terms and definitions will be further refined and updated., In this Consensus Statement, an expert panel from the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Clinics Multicenter Advancement Network (PPACMAN) recommends terminology for defining specific subgroups of individuals during the preclinical and early clinical phases of psoriatic arthritis to be used in research studies.

Background: Improved understanding of the genetic architecture of psoriatic disease (PsD) and reduction in genotyping costs provide an opportunity to assess the application of genetic testing for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) diagnosis. The study aimed to assess the performance of a multi-marker genetic kit in classifying patients as PsD and PsA and to assess whether the performance has improved by combining genetic and clinical data.Methods: 328 patients with psoriasis and musculoskeletal symptoms (78 PsA and 250 psoriasis alone) who were referred to rheumatology for suspected PsA and 341 non-psoriatic controls were analyzed. A custom multi-SNP genetic assay, including 41 variants based on large scale association genome-wide association studies in PsA, was genotyped. Machine-learning methods were used to identify the optimal classification model by area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Results: The performance of all three classifiers to distinguish PsD from non-psoriatic controls was moderate with similar AUC (range 0.64 to 0.69). Logistic regression had the highest AUC and showed moderate specificity (61.9%) and specificity (67.9%). The ability of the models to correctly classify PsA among all psoriasis patients was suboptimal with AUC ranging from 0.55 to 0.60 with low sensitivity (1.3% to 34.6%) and moderate to high specificity (69.2% to 99.6%). The combination of genetic and clinical data resulted in an improvement in the performance of the models (AUC 0.65 to 0.69), however, the information contributed by the genetic markers was only marginal. Conclusions: Genetic testing has marginal effect on correctly classifying PsA among psoriasis patients in clinical setting.

Objectives To report the discrepancies and agreements between US, MRI and radiography of the hand in PsA, and to compare the sensitivity and specificity of US and radiography to MRI as the gold standard imaging study in PsA. Methods All of the 100 prospectively recruited consecutive PsA patients underwent clinical assessment and concomitant radiographic, US and MRI studies of the MCP, PIP and DIP joints of one hand. Synovitis, flexor tenosynovitis, extensor paratenonitis, erosions and bone proliferations were identified and scored. All readers were blinded to clinical data, and agreement was calculated based on prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Results The prevalence of synovitis, flexor tenosynovitis, extensor paratenonitis and erosions was similar for US and MRI, while that of bone proliferation was significantly increased in US and radiography compared with MRI (P Conclusion There is very good agreement between US and MRI for the detection of inflammatory changes in finger joints in PsA. US, radiography and MRI have a good-to-very good agreement for destructive changes.

We undertook this study to identify the optimal combination of triage methods to identify psoriatic arthritis (PsA) among psoriasis patients with musculoskeletal symptoms in a rapid access clinic and to describe their outcome after 1 year.Patients with psoriasis and no prior diagnosis of PsA were referred for assessment of their musculoskeletal symptoms. Each patient was assessed by the following 3 triage modalities: 1) assessment by an advanced practice physical therapist; 2) targeted musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSK-US); and 3) PsA screening questionnaires. The patients were then evaluated by a rheumatologist who determined the patient's disease status and classified them into the following groups: not PsA, possibly PsA, or PsA. Patients returned for a 1-year follow-up visit and were reassessed for change in their disease status. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each individual modality, as well as for combinations of modalities.A total of 203 patients with psoriasis and musculoskeletal symptoms were enrolled. The percentage of patients classified as having PsA was 8.8%, and 23.6% were converted into the possibly PsA group. There was no significant difference in the individual performance of the modalities. The highest sensitivity was seen with MSK-US (89%), and the highest specificity was found with the Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation questionnaire (79%). The addition of MSK-US data improved the performance of the modalities. A total of 9 patients were classified into the PsA group after 1 year. All patient-reported outcome measures had significantly improved at 1 year (P 0.001).Combining MSK-US with a screening questionnaire for PsA improved the triage of patients with suspected PsA.

International audience; Objective: Sex differences may modify symptoms, disease expression, and treatment effects. The objective of this study was to evaluate the link between life impact and sex in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).Methods: Remission and Flare in Psoriatic Arthritis (ReFlaP; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03119805) was a study in 14 countries of consecutive adult patients with definite PsA. Participants underwent comprehensive PsA assessment using the following measures: Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), Minimal Disease Activity (MDA), and Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID). Disease activity was compared by sex using t-tests or Wilcoxon tests. The association of PsAID with sex was analyzed using hierarchical generalized linear models.Results: Of 458 participants, 50.2% were male and the mean ± SD age was 53.1 ± 12.6 years. The mean ± SD PsA duration was 11 ± 8.2 years, and 51.5% of participants were being treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Women, compared to men, had worse mean ± SD Leeds Enthesitis Index scores (0.8 ± 1.7 versus 0.3 ± 0.9), pain on a numerical rating scale (NRS; range 0-10) (4.7 ± 2.7 versus 3.5 ± 2.7), HAQ DI scores (0.9 ± 0.7 versus 0.5 ± 0.6), fatigue on an NRS (5.2 ± 3 versus 3.3 ± 2.8), and PsAID scores (4.1 ± 2.4 versus 2.8 ± 2.3) (P < 0.001 for all). Women were also less frequently at treatment target compared to men according to DAPSA (cutoffs of ≤4 for remission and >4 and ≤14 for low disease activity; mean ± SD score 16.9 ± 14.9 in women versus 12.6 ± 16.6 in men) and MDA (25.7% versus 50.0%; P < 0.001 for all) scores. High life impact (PsAID score ≥4) was associated with female sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.3), enthesitis (OR 1.34), tender joints (OR 1.10)(P < 0.001 for all), and comorbidities (OR 1.22, P = 0.002).Conclusion: High life impact was independently associated with female sex, enthesitis, comorbidities, and tender joints. At treatment target, women had higher life impact compared to men. It is necessary for life impact to become a part of PsA treat-to-target strategies.

ObjectivesPatient care can vary substantially by country. The objective was to explore differences in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) across countries for disease activity, impact and treatments.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis of 13 countries from the Remission/Flare in PsA study (NCT03119805) of consecutive adult patients with definite PsA was performed. Countries were classified into tertiles by gross domestic product (GDP)/capita. Disease activity (Disease Activity in PsA, DAPSA and Minimal Disease Activity, MDA) and their components, disease impact (patient-reported outcomes) and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were analysed per country and compared between the three tertiles of GDP/capita by parametric and non-parametric tests. We also explored the percentage of patients with significant disease activity (DAPSA >14) and no ongoing bDMARD prescription.ResultsIn 439 patients (50.6% male, mean age 52.3 years, mean disease duration 10.1 years), disease activity and disease impact were higher in the lowest GDP/capita countries. DAPSA remission and MDA were attained in the lowest tertile in 7.0% and 18.4% patients, vs 29.1% and 49.5% in the middle tertile and 16.8% and 41.3% in the high tertile, respectively (all p14 and no bDMARDs was 18.5%, and was higher in lower GDP/capita countries (p=0.004).ConclusionPsA patients from countries with the lowest GDP/capita, despite similar use of bDMARDs, were more likely to have high disease activity and worse disease impact. There is a need for more equity in healthcare.

The ability to visualize musculoskeletal structures with high-resolution ultrasound is an asset to understanding the complexity of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). During the 2021 Annual Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) meeting, 3 topics were presented and discussed in the ultrasound workshop: (1) the progress on the Diagnostic Ultrasound Enthesitis Tool (DUET) project; (2) the sonographic evaluation of joints in PsA–GRAPPA joint project; and (3) extrasynovial lesions in PsA. The ultrasound group aims to develop sonographic tools that are feasible and can be used in standard care to diagnose PsA early. The discussions around these topics will shape the group's work toward developing a composite index to diagnose PsA early.

Objective.To compare differences in clinical activity and remuneration between male and female rheumatologists and to evaluate associations between physician gender and practice sizes and patient volume, accounting for rheumatologists’ age, and calendar year effects.Methods.We conducted a population-based study in Ontario, Canada, between 2000 to 2015 identifying all rheumatologists practicing as full-time equivalents (FTEs) or above and assessed differences in practice sizes (number of unique patients), practice volumes (number of patient visits), and remuneration (total fee-for-service billings) between male and female rheumatologists. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate the effects of gender on practice size and volume separately, accounting for age and year.Results.The number of rheumatologists practicing at ≥ 1 FTE increased from 89 to 120 from 2000 to 2015, with the percentage of females increasing from 27.0% to 41.7%. Males had larger practice sizes and practice volumes. Remuneration was consistently higher for males (median difference of CAD $46,000–102,000 annually). Our adjusted analyses estimated that in a given year, males saw a mean of 606 (95% CI 107–1105) more patients than females did, and had 1059 (95% CI 345–1773) more patient visits. Among males and females combined, there was a small but statistically significant reduction in mean annual number of patient visits, and middle-aged rheumatologists had greater practice sizes and volumes than their younger/older counterparts.Conclusion.On average, female rheumatologists saw fewer patients and had fewer patient visits annually relative to males, resulting in lower earnings. Increasing feminization necessitates workforce planning to ensure that populations’ needs are met.

Psoriatic arthritis is a heterogenous disease affecting peripheral and axial joints, tendons, ligaments, and their insertions, in addition to the skin and the nails. The complexity of the involved structures has puzzled clinicians trying to understand the underlying pathology that leads to symptoms in order to choose the appropriate medications with different modes of actions. Imaging, mainly ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, allows of accurate detection of inflammatory changes in the musculoskeletal structures, which helps to avoid false positive and negative assessments. The linking of different anatomical structures' involvement using imaging also provides insights into the pathogenesis of psoriatic arthritis. In this review, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging will be discussed in depth with regard to their use in the field of peripheral psoriatic arthritis, with a focus on the literature from the last 4 years and recent advances.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a seronegative inflammatory arthritis often observed in patients with skin psoriasis. Treatment of PsA, especially peripheral PsA, has typically relied on disease-modifying anti-rheumatic agents (DMARDs); however, these agents have limited efficacy and considerable associated toxicity. More recently, monoclonal antibodies (biologic agents) have revolutionized management of immune-mediated diseases; however, these therapies carry a high cost and require parenteral administration. Apremilast, a novel oral DMARD, was approved by the European Union for psoriatic arthritis in 2015. Apremilast inhibits the function of phosphodiesterase-4, a regulator of cyclic adenosine monophosphate, leading to a broad inhibition of proinflammatory mediators and subsequent reduction in tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) response. The PALACE and ACTIVE trials, phase III randomized controlled trials for apremilast, showed that apremilast is effective at improving various clinical and patient-reported outcome measures for psoriatic arthritis in both DMARD-naïve and DMARD-experienced PsA patients. Efficacy was limited in patients with previous biologic DMARD failure and the overall efficacy of apremilast appears to be less than biologics agents, though no head-to-head trials exist comparing apremilast to biologic DMARDs. Apremilast is generally well tolerated, with short-lived gastrointestinal side effects being the most commonly reported adverse events. Guidelines suggest a trial of apremilast in patients who have failed traditional oral DMARDs and for whom, biologics are contraindicated. More studies directly comparing apremilast to conventional DMARDs and biologic DMARDs are needed and will be crucial in informing clinical and economic decisions about apremilast role in management of PsA.

Objective.We aimed to investigate the prevalence of ultrasonographic (US) lesions in healthy entheses and contributing factors.Methods.US scans were performed on 960 entheses of 80 healthy subjects. Factors contributing to entheseal changes were investigated with regression analysis.Results.Thickening (20.4% of the entheses) and enthesophytes (23.1%) were the most common inflammatory and structural damage lesions, respectively. Age (p < 0.001), male sex (p = 0.003), body mass index (BMI; p = 0.001), and high physical activity (p = 0.007) were independent predictors of enthesitis scores on US.Conclusion.The effects of age, sex, BMI, and physical activity on the entheses need to be considered when differentiating disease from health.

Background Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory musculoskeletal disease, manifesting as peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, spondylitis, and skin and nail psoriasis. A core set of domains for measuring the impact of PsA has been developed, including pain, patient global assessment, physical function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and fatigue. To understand the impact of PsA on health domains from a patient’s perspective, a global survey was developed and results reported in the context of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID-12) questionnaire. Methods An online patient-based global survey was conducted by The Harris Poll in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the US between November 2, 2017 and March 12, 2018. Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old with a diagnosis of PsA for > 1 year, had visited a rheumatologist/dermatologist in the past 12 months and reported using ≥ 1 synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for PsA. Patients reported on PsA severity and symptoms, and the impact of PsA on HRQoL. After survey completion, responses were aligned with PsAID health domains. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were conducted. Results This analysis included 1286 patients from eight countries. Most patients (97%) reported musculoskeletal symptoms relating to PsA in the past year. Common moderate/major impacts of PsA were on physical activity (78%), ability to perform certain activities (76%), work productivity (62%), and career path (57%). Skin/nail symptoms occurred in 80% of patients. Overall, 69% of patients reported that PsA had a moderate/major impact on emotional/mental wellbeing, 56% on romantic relationships/intimacy, and 44% on relationships with family and friends. Social impacts included emotional distress (58%), social shame or disapproval (32%), and ceased participation in social activities (45%). Over half of all patients experienced unusual fatigue over the past 12 months (52%). The health domains that patients reported as being impacted by PsA aligned with life impact domains of the patient-derived PsAID health domains. Conclusion These results highlight the impact of PsA on multiple health domains from a patient perspective that should be considered during shared decision-making processes between healthcare providers and patients.

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA)-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) working group provided updates at the 2019 GRAPPA annual meeting on its work toward developing a core outcome set for PsA. The working group prioritized 4 domains, including musculoskeletal disease activity (enthesitis and dactylitis), fatigue, physical function, and structural damage. In this report, the working group summarizes its progress in standardizing the core outcome set for these 4 domains.

ObjectiveTo describe the prevalence of inflammatory and structural lesions using whole spine MRI in patients with psoriatic disease, and to assess their correlation with clinical features and with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) classification criteria.MethodsThis retrospective analysis included patients with whole spine and sacroiliac joints (SIJ) MRI, selected from 2 populations: (1) active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), irrespective of axial symptoms; (2) psoriasis with confirmed or suspected PsA and axSpA symptoms. MRI spondylitis and/or sacroiliitis (MRI-SpA) was defined according to Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) consensus and by radiologist impression. Agreement between MRI-SpA and different inflammatory back pain (IBP) definitions (Berlin/ASAS/rheumatologist criteria) and the axSpA classification criteria were calculated considering MRI as gold standard. Logistic regression determined MRI-SpA-associated factors.Results93 patients were analysed (69.9% PsA; 30.1% psoriasis). Back pain was present in 81.7%, defined as IBP in 36.6%–57%. MRI-SpA was found in 9.7% of patients by ASAS definition and in 12.9% by radiologist impression, of which 25% had isolated spondylitis.Low agreement was found between the three IBP definitions and MRI-SpA. Rheumatologist criteria was the most sensitive (50%–55.6%) while ASAS and Berlin criteria were the most specific (61.9%–63%). axSpA criteria had poor sensitivity for MRI-SpA (22.2%–25%). Late onset of back pain or asymptomatic patients accounted for most cases with MRI-SpA not meeting axSpA or IBP criteria. Male sex was associated with MRI-SpA (OR 6.91; 95% CI 1.42 to 33.59) in multivariable regression analysis.ConclusionPrevalence of MRI-defined axSpA was low and showed poor agreement with IBP and axSpA criteria.

Objective Dactylitis—long considered a hallmark clinical feature of psoriatic arthritis (PsA)—occurs in 16–49% of patients with PsA. In this review, we discuss the pathology of dactylitis in PsA and clinical and imaging tools used to diagnose and monitor dactylitis. Methods PubMed literature searches were conducted using the terms psoriatic arthritis, dactylitis, pathology, imaging, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, clinical, and indices. Articles were deemed relevant if they provided insight into the pathology, diagnosis, and/or monitoring of dactylitis in PsA, or if they discussed clinical or imaging indices used to assess dactylitis. Results Dactylitis in PsA often occurs asymmetrically, involves the feet more than the hands, and affects multiple digits simultaneously. Although dactylitis can be assessed clinically, imaging (radiography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and bone scintigraphy) has provided key insights by documenting the various anatomic targets affected. Although inflammation can occur in most of the digital compartments, the nail has not been as well studied in dactylitic digits. Outcome measures for dactylitis range from dichotomous documentation to the Leeds dactylometer. Imaging outcome tools utilizing magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound are under development. Conclusion Dactylitis, which is associated with more erosive forms of PsA, is often the inaugural feature of PsA and may be the only feature for months to years. Early diagnosis and treatment of PsA favors better outcomes, possibly mitigating radiographic progression and destructive changes. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are useful tools that have not only shed light on the diverse tissues affected in dactylitis but can also be used to document ongoing inflammation. Ultrasound imaging dactylitis scores are being developed that will assist in diagnosing and documenting which compartments optimally respond to various treatment modalities.

The aims of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients according to the most recent definition in a Mediterranean population and to determine its association with biomarkers of inflammation and serum adipocytokine levels.Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected on 74 patients with PsA and 82 control subjects. The presence of MetS was determined according to the current "harmonization" definition. Serum adipocytokines were analyzed. Continuous variables were compared by t test and discrete variables by χ test. Multivariate regression models compared the association between the presence of MetS and the blood levels of adipocytokines.The prevalence of MetS was higher in PsA patients compared with the control group: 54.8% versus 36.6%, respectively (P = 0.02; odds ratio, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-4.69). The main difference between the 2 groups was waist circumference. No association was found between MetS and parameters of articular and skin disease activity or treatment. Leptin levels and leptin/adiponectin ratio were higher in PsA patients compared with control subjects: 83.4 versus 51.7 ng/mL (P = 0.001) and 6.3 × 10 versus 4.1 × 10 (P = 0.015), respectively. There was no significant difference in the adiponectin levels between the groups.The prevalence of MetS was higher in PsA patients compared with non-PsA control subjects in this Mediterranean population. Clinicians caring for PsA patients ought to be aware of the increased risk of MetS in PsA patients, confirmed in different regions worldwide. The increased MetS seems to be linked to central obesity in these patients, and appropriate treatment recommendations are advised.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous disease with various manifestations of musculoskeletal inflammation. Recent advances in imaging, including ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), allow for the accurate evaluation of the extent of inflammation and damage in the peripheral joints, spine, and entheses. The development and validation of outcome measures are critical steps in creating standardized evaluations of musculoskeletal inflammation and damage in psoriatic patients. At the 2017 meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and PsA (GRAPPA), recent work on outcome measures from the GRAPPA US and MRI working groups was summarized. The GRAPPA US group has been developing and validating a sonographic enthesitis scoring system in PsA. The GRAPPA MRI group focuses on the evaluation of whole-body MRI for the assessment of musculoskeletal inflammation in the joints and entheses in patients with PsA.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects different structures of the musculoskeletal system in addition to the skin and the nail. The complexity of the disease had been a barrier to understand the pathogenesis and define valid outcome tools; however, our understanding about the disease has considerably increased with time mainly because of the advances in imaging, new discoveries in genetics and underlying inflammatory pathways, and better understanding of the epidemiology of the disease and environmental risk factors. The purpose of this review is to summarize developments and changes in epidemiology, risk factors for developing PsA, and outcome measures with a focus on data obtained in the last 10 years.

Objective Enthesitis is an important pathophysiologic component of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). HLA genes are implicated in the pathogenesis of PsA. Little is known about the relationship between HLA genetic susceptibility markers and enthesitis in PsA patients. Our aim was to examine the association between HLA genetic susceptibility markers and sonographic enthesitis in PsA. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was conducted in patients with PsA. Sonographic enthesitis was assessed according to the Madrid Sonography Enthesitis Index scoring system. HLA genotyping was performed using sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes. The association between 6 HLA susceptibility markers of PsA and the severity of sonographic enthesitis was assessed using multivariate regression models adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and disease duration. Results Two hundred twenty-five patients were included, 57.8% of whom were men. The mean ± SD age was 56.1 ± 12.7 years, and the mean ± SD PsA duration was 16.9 ± 12.3 years. In the multivariate regression model, HLA-B*27 was associated with a higher enthesitis score (β = 4.24 [95% confidence interval {95% CI} 0.02, 8.46]), and the interaction between HLA-B*27 and PsA duration was statistically significant, showing an increasing effect of HLA-B*27 with longer PsA duration (β = 4.62 [95% CI 1.38, 7.86]). Conclusion HLA-B*27 is associated with more severe sonographic enthesitis in PsA, particularly in patients with longer disease duration. This finding highlights the possible role of genetic variants in predisposing to PsA subphenotypes.

Objectives We performed a two-stage study to assess the effect of TNF-α inhibitors (TNFi) on subclinical cardiovascular disease in psoriatic patients. Methods We first assessed carotid total plaque area by ultrasound at baseline and after 2-3 years in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) (n=319). The annual progression rate of atherosclerosis was the outcome of interest. In stage 2 we studied vascular inflammation using FDG PET/CT in PsA patients on TNFi (n=21) and age and sex matched PsA patients not on any biologics (n=13). This sample underwent FDG PET/CT scans at baseline and 1 year to assess vascular inflammation, measured as target-to-background ratio (TBR). In both studies, statistical analyses included multivariable regression analysis adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and statins. Results In the first stage, men had a significantly higher atherosclerosis progression compared to women (p

Objective.We aimed to estimate the proportion of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) in an international multicenter cohort of patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).Methods.A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of patients with psoriatic disease from the International Psoriasis and Arthritis Research Team cohort. The presence of modifiable CVRF [diabetes, hypertension (HTN), dyslipidemia, smoking, elevated body mass index, and central obesity] and the use of appropriate therapies for HTN and dyslipidemia were determined. The 10-year CV risk was calculated according to the Framingham Risk Score. Physician adherence with guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidemia and HTN was assessed. Regression analysis was used to assess predictors of undertreatment of HTN and dyslipidemia.Results.A total of 2254 patients (58.9% PsA, 41.1% psoriasis) from 8 centers in Canada, the United States, and Israel were included. Their mean age was 52 ± 13.8 years and 53% were men. Of the patients, 87.6% had at least 1 modifiable CVRF, 45.1% had HTN, 49.4% dyslipidemia, 13.3% diabetes, 75.3% were overweight or obese, 54.3% central obesity, and 17.3% were current smokers. We found 59.2% of patients with HTN and 65.6% of patients with dyslipidemia were undertreated. Undertreatment was associated with younger age (≤ 50 yrs), having psoriasis, and male sex.Conclusion.In real-world settings, a large proportion of patients with psoriasis and PsA were underdiagnosed and undertreated for HTN and dyslipidemia. Strategies to improve the management of CVRF in psoriatic patients are warranted.

Background:Since the 2015 GRAPPA treatment recommendations were published, therapeutic options and management strategies for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have advanced considerably.Objectives:The goal of the GRAPPA recommendations update is to develop high quality, evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of PsA, including related conditions and comorbidities.Methods:GRAPPA rheumatologists, dermatologists and patient research partners (PRPs) updated overarching principles for the management of adults with PsA by consensus. Principles considering use of biosimilars and tapering/discontinuing of therapy were added to this update. Systematic literature searches based on data publicly available from three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL) were conducted from the end of the previous recommendations’ searches through August 2020. Additional abstract searches were performed for conference presentations in 2017-2020. Searches covered PsA treatments (peripheral arthritis, axial arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin, and nail disease). Additional searches were performed for related conditions (uveitis and IBD) and comorbidities evaluating their impact on safety and treatment outcomes. Individual groups assessed the risk of bias and applied the GRADE system to generate strong or conditional recommendations for therapies within the domain groups and for the management of comorbidities and related conditions. These recommendations were then incorporated into an overall treatment schema.Results:Updated, evidence-based treatment recommendations are shown (Table 1). Since 2015, many new medications have been incorporated. Additional results for older medications, such as methotrexate, have been published across PsA domains. Based on the evidence, the treatment recommendations developed by individual groups were incorporated into the overall schema including principles for management of arthritis, spondylitis, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin, and nail disease in PsA, and associated conditions (Figure 1). Choice of therapy for an individual should ideally address all of the domains that impact on that patient, supporting shared decision making with the patient involved. Additional consideration in the recommendations was given to key associated conditions and comorbidities as these often impact on therapy choice.Conclusion:These GRAPPA treatment recommendations provide up to date, evidence-based guidance to providers who manage and treat adult patients with PsA. These recommendations are based on domain-based strategy for PsA and supplemented by overarching principles developed by consensus of GRAPPA members.IndicationStrongForConditional ForConditionalAgainstStrongAgainstInsufficient evidencePeripheral Arthritis DMARD NaïvecsDMARDs, TNFi, PDE4i, IL-12/23i, IL-17i, IL-23i, JAKiNSAIDs, oral CS, IA CS,IL-6i,Peripheral Arthritis DMARD IRTNFi, IL-12/23i, IL-17i, IL-23i, JAKiPDE4i, other csDMARD, NSAIDs, oral CS, IA CS,IL-6i,Peripheral ArthritisbDMARD IRTNFi, IL-17i, IL-23i, JAKi,NSAIDs, oral CS, IA CS, IL-12/23i, PDE4i, CTLA-4-IgIL-6i,Axial arthritis, Biologic NaïveNSAIDs, Physiotherapy, simple analgesia, TNFi, IL-17i, JAKiCS SIJ injections, bisphosphonatescsDMARDs, IL-6i,IL-12/23i, IL-23iAxial PsA, Biologic IRNSAIDs, Physiotherapy, simple analgesia, TNFi, IL-17i, JAKi csDMARDs, IL-6i,IL-12/23i, IL-23iEnthesitisTNFi, IL-12/23i, IL-17i, PDE4i, IL-23i, JAKiNSAIDs, physiotherapy, CS injections, MTXIL-6i,Other csDMARDsDactylitisTNFi IL-12/23i, IL-17i, IL-23i, JAKi, PDE4iNSAIDs, CS injections, MTXOther csDMARDsPsoriasisTopicals, phototherapy, csDMARDs, TNFi, IL-12/23i, IL-17i, IL-23i, PDE4i, JAKi AcitretinNail psoriasisTNFi, IL12/23i, IL17i, IL23i, PDE4iTopical CS, tacrolimus and calcipotriol combination or individual therapies, Pulsed dye laser, csDMARDs, acitretin, JAKiTopical Cyclosporine / Tazarotene, Fumarate, Fumaric Acid Esters, UVA and UVB Phototherapy, AlitretinoinIBDTNFi (not ETN), IL-12/23i, JAKiIL-17iUveitisTNFi (not ETN)Disclosure of Interests:Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis, Enrique Soriano Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb,GSK, Genzyme, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb,GSK, Genzyme, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Nadia Corp: None declared, Heidi Bertheussen Consultant of: Pfizer, Kristina Callis-Duffin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Stiefel Laboratories, UCB, Ortho Dermatologics, Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Anaptys Bio, Boehringer Ingelheim., Cristiano Barbosa Campanholo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Jeffrey Chau: None declared, Lihi Eder Consultant of: Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, Eli Lily, Pfizer, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, Eli Lily, Pfizer, Novartis, Daniel Fernandez Consultant of: Abbvie, UCB, Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen and Brystol, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, UCB, Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen and Brystol, Oliver FitzGerald Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen and Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen and Pfizer Inc, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Amit Garg Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Asana Biosciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, InflaRx, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Viela Biosciences, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Jansen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Jansen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Niti Goel: None declared, Suzanne Grieb: None declared, Philip Helliwell Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, M Elaine Husni Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, UCB, Regeneron, and Pfizer, Deepak Jadon Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Healthcare Celltrion, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Healthcare Celltrion, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Healthcare Celltrion, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Arnon Katz: None declared, Dhruvkumar Laheru: None declared, John Latella: None declared, Ying Ying Leung Speakers bureau: Novartis, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Consultant of: Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim, Grant/research support from: Pfizer and conference support from AbbVie, Christine Lindsay Shareholder of: Amgen, Employee of: Aurinia pharmaceuticals, Ennio Lubrano Speakers bureau: Alfa-Sigma, Abbvie, Galapagos, Janssen Cilag, Lilly., Consultant of: Alfa-Sigma, Abbvie, Galapagos, Janssen Cilag, Lilly., Luis Mazzuoccolo Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Elli Lilly, Jansen, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Elli Lilly, Jansen, Roland McDonald: None declared, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Denis O’Sullivan: None declared, Alexis Ogdie Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis and Pfizer and Amgen, Wendy Olsder: None declared, Lori Schick: None declared, Ingrid Steinkoenig: None declared, Maarten de Wit Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Danielle van der Windt: None declared, Arthur Kavanaugh Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

Background:Differences in efficacy outcomes favouring males vs females with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been reported with conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors; results with Janus kinase inhibitors are less clear.Objectives:To assess the impact of sex on efficacy, safety and persistence in tofacitinib RA clinical trials.Methods:Efficacy and safety analyses included data pooled from Phase (P)3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients (pts) with RA and an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate (NCT00847613; NCT00853385) or ≥1 DMARD (NCT00856544) who received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg Q2W or placebo (PBO), with background csDMARDs. Persistence analyses of pts receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID ± csDMARDs used data pooled from two long-term extension trials (NCT00661661; NCT00413699). Efficacy outcomes to Month (M)12 included: ACR20/50/70 responses, changes from baseline (Δ; BL) in DAS28-4(ESR), CDAI, HAQ-DI and FACIT-F, and DAS28-4(ESR) remission (Results:2265 pts were included from P3 RCTs. Demographics and BL characteristics were comparable across sexes and treatments. Tofacitinib or ADA vs PBO generally led to significantly higher ACR20/50/70 responses in both sexes through M6. To M12, ACR20/50/70 responses were broadly comparable across active treatments and between sexes, with significant differences favouring males at some time points, including M3 (Figure 1). Statistically significant differences favouring males vs females were observed in DAS28-4(ESR) remission rates at most time points, including M3 (Figure 1); a similar trend was observed for ΔDAS28-4(ESR). ΔCDAI, ΔHAQ-DI and ΔFACIT-F significantly favoured males vs females receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID at most time points, while ΔHAQ-DI and ΔFACIT-F tended to favour females receiving tofacitinib 10 mg BID. Rates of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), severe AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were slightly higher in females vs males with tofacitinib 5 mg BID; this was generally reversed with tofacitinib 10 mg BID and ADA (Table 1). AEs of special interest (AESI) were comparable between sexes with tofacitinib and ADA, although low event numbers limit interpretation (Table 1). Time to all-cause discontinuation and discontinuation due to AEs/lack of efficacy with tofacitinib 5 mg BID was similar between sexes. Numerical differences favouring females vs males were observed for time to all-cause discontinuation and discontinuation due to AEs with tofacitinib 10 mg BID.Table 1.Safety summary to M24 in pooled DMARD-IR P3 RCTsTofacitinib5 mg BIDTofacitinib10 mg BIDADAPts with events,n (%)Females(N=707)Males(N=133)Females(N=698)Males(N=137)Females(N=162)Males(N=42)AEs562 (79.5)85 (63.9)529 (75.8)107 (78.1)119 (73.5)30 (71.4)SAEs107 (15.1)17 (12.8)71 (10.2)24 (17.5)13 (8.0)6 (14.3)Severe AEs86 (12.2)12 (9.0)55 (7.9)22 (16.1)14 (8.6)5 (11.9)Discontinuations due to AEs87 (12.3)10 (7.5)88 (12.6)10 (7.3)17 (10.5)5 (11.9)Death6 (0.8)4 (3.0)03 (2.2)1 (0.6)2 (4.8)AESISerious infections28 (4.0)6 (4.5)27 (3.9)6 (4.4)2 (1.2)1 (2.4)All HZ (non-serious/serious)35 (5.0)7 (5.3)43 (6.2)5 (3.6)2 (1.2)3 (7.1)MACE5 (0.7)02 (0.3)3 (2.2)03 (7.1)Malignancies (excl. NMSC)7 (1.0)1 (0.8)9 (1.3)1 (0.7)01(2.4)NMSC2 (0.3)5 (3.8)4 (0.6)2 (1.5)1 (0.6)1 (2.4)Venous thromboembolism3 (0.4)03 (0.4)1 (0.7)00HZ, herpes zoster; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; NMSC, non-melanoma skin cancerConclusion:Efficacy outcomes with tofacitinib and ADA were generally higher in males and comparable in females vs previously reported mixed population response rates for advanced therapies. Safety findings did not reveal a consistent pattern between sexes. Tofacitinib persistence was similar between sexes.Acknowledgements:Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Christina Viegelmann, CMC Connect, and funded by Pfizer Inc.Disclosure of Interests:H Niall Jones Consultant of: Pfizer Inc, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Corrona, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, SetPoint Medical, UCB, Hendrik Schulze-Koops Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Hexal Sandoz, Hospira, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, UCB, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Eduardo Mysler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Cassandra Kinch Shareholder of: Pfizer Canada ULC, Employee of: Pfizer Canada ULC, David C Gruben Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Rebecca Germino Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Carol A. Connell Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lihi Eder Speakers bureau: AbbVie, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc, UCB

To the Editor: We sincerely thank Dr. Masi, et al for their comments in response to our manuscript, “Entheseal Changes in Response to Age, Body Mass Index and Physical Activity: An Ultrasound (US) Study in Healthy People”1,2. Our study had demonstrated that US changes within the enthesis are associated with older age, higher BMI, physical activity, and male sex. As seen in Figure 1 of the original manuscript, the slope of the US scores are different for patients younger and older than 50 years old; therefore, Masi, et al suggested looking at these subgroups separately in detail2. In Table 1, we have provided the multiple regression analysis for US scores of … Address correspondence to Dr. S.Z. Aydin, 1967 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, ON K1H 7W9, Canada. Email: saydin{at}toh.ca.

The heterogeneous nature of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), encompassing several domains, with varied presentations brings about considerable challenges in disease evaluation. Prompt diagnosis and targeted therapy have resulted in disease remission being accepted as an attainable goal in PsA. Imaging has played a pivotal role in early diagnosis, better understanding of pathogenesis, monitoring of disease, and as an outcome measurement tool in clinical trials in PsA. Conventional radiography has been the cornerstone of assessing structural damage. With the advent of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, better delineation of the various structures involved in the disease process is possible, thus enabling sensitive assessment of inflammatory and structural pathologies together. In this review, imaging modalities used in routine assessment and clinical trials in PsA will be discussed in detail, focusing on advances over the past 5 years.

Objectives: There is no widely recognized method to assess axial disease in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We aimed to determine the sensitivity to change of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) Radiology Index- spine (BASRI-spine), the modified Stoke AS spinal score (mSASSS), the Radiographic AS spinal score (RASSS) and the PsA Spondylitis Radiology Index (PASRI) in Axial PsA (AxPsA). Methods: Radiographs of 105 patients with AxPsA were retrieved for 2 time points at least 2 years apart and subsequently anonymized. All radiographs were scored by three rheumatologists blinded to name and order of examination using an electronic application that allowed recording of disease manifestations specific for AxPsA and automatically calculated the BASRI-spine, mSASSS, RASSS and PASRI. An independent expert determined whether there was ‘true' radiographic progression from an overall impression after viewing the radiographs with knowledge of chronologic order. Sensitivity, specificity and odds ratios for a 1 unit increase in the scores to identify true change were determined. Results: 25 (24%) patients showed progression as determined by the independent expert. The sensitivity and specificity respectively for an increase in score to detect true change was as follows: BASRI-spine 0.48, 0.78; mSASSS 0.52, 0.84; RASSS 0.44, 0.84; PASRI 0.52, 0.74. Logistic regression analyses showed that an increase of 1 point in the respective scores was associated with the following odds ratio for identifying ‘true' progression: BASRI-spine 3.0, mSASSS 5.27, RASSS 3.70, and PASRI 3.06. Conclusion: Available scoring systems for quantifying radiographic AxPsA have moderate sensitivity but high specificity to detect ‘true' change. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Objective: We aimed to assess whether the presence of non-specific musculoskeletal symptoms, their degree and change over time predicted the development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a prospective cohort of psoriasis patients without arthritis at baseline. Methods: This prospective cohort study involved patients with psoriasis who were assessed at baseline to exclude the presence of clinical PsA. The study participants were re-assessed annually to determine if they had developed PsA. The presence of musculoskeletal symptoms and patients' scores of pain, fatigue, stiffness, physical functioning and psychological distress were recorded at each visit. These variables served as predictors for the development of PsA. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess what symptoms predicted the development of PsA. Results: A total of 57 of 410 psoriasis patients developed PsA since enrollment. At baseline, the presence of arthralgia in women (Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.59, p=0.02), heel pain (HR 4.18, p=0.02), high fatigue score (HR 2.36, p=0.007) and higher stiffness score (HR 2.03, p=0.045) predicted subsequent development of PsA. In addition, an increase from baseline in fatigue score (HR 1.27, p=0.001), pain score (HR 1.34, p

Objective.To assess whether obesity is associated with distinct psoriatic arthritis (PsA) features and whether it interacts with PsA HLA susceptibility alleles.Methods.Patients with early PsA were compared with patients with psoriasis without arthritis (PsC). The primary predictor was the body mass index (BMI) at the first visit to the clinic. The clinical features across 3 BMI groups were compared by linear trend test and Cochrane-Armitage trend test. The interaction between BMI and HLA risk alleles for psoriatic disease (HLA-B*27, B*3901, B*3801, B*0801, B*4402, B*4403, and C*0602) were assessed using logistic regression analysis.Results.There were 314 patients with early PsA, and 498 patients with PsC were analyzed. Obesity was more frequent in patients with PsA compared with PsC (OR 1.77; p = 0.002). Higher BMI was associated with older age at onset of PsA (p < 0.0001) and psoriasis (p = 0.009). The frequency of HLA-B*27 was higher in patients with normal weight compared with those with higher BMI (p = 0.002). A significant interaction was found for the combined effect of HLA-B*27 and obesity in logistic regression analysis (p = 0.036). In patients who were HLA-B*27–negative, the association between obesity and PsA was statistically significant (OR 2.39; p < 0.001), but obesity was less frequent in patients with PsA who were HLA-B*27–positive.Conclusion.Obesity is linked with late-onset psoriasis and PsA, while normal weight is associated with the presence of the HLA-B*27 allele and an earlier onset of the disease. These results highlight the differential risk factors that may drive the inflammatory process in psoriatic disease.

Objectives: To assess the magnitude of risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with the general population through a systematic review and a meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBase, and Cochrane databases as well as abstract archives from rheumatology conferences. Observational studies that met the following criteria were assessed by 2 researchers: 1) PsA diagnosis; 2) Cardiovascular or cerebrovascular outcomes; 3) Comparison group of individuals without psoriasis and rheumatic diseases; 4) case-control, cross-sectional or cohort studies. We calculated weighted–pooled summary estimates of the maximally adjusted effect size estimates for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases using the random-effects model, and tested for heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 32,973 patients with PsA. There was a 43% increased risk of cardiovascular diseases in patients with PsA compared with the general population (pooled Odds Ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.24, 1.66). The risk of incident cardiovascular events was increased by 55% (pooled OR 1.22-1.96). Morbidity risks for myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular diseases and heart failure were increased by 68%, 22% and 31%, respectively (pooled OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.31–2.15; pooled OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05–1.41 and pooled OR 1.31 95% CI 1.11, 1.55, respectively). We identified significant heterogeneity in all main analyses (P

Objectives.We assessed the accuracy of case definition algorithms for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in health administrative data and used primary care electronic medical records (EMR) to describe disease and treatment characteristics of these patients.Methods.We randomly sampled 30,424 adult Ontario residents from the Electronic Medical Record Primary Care database and identified 2215 patients with any possible psoriatic disease–related terms in their EMR. The relevant patient records were chart abstracted to confirm diagnoses of psoriasis or PsA. This validation set was then linked to health administrative data to assess the performance of different algorithms for physician billing diagnosis codes, hospitalization diagnosis codes, and medications for psoriatic disease. We report the performance of selected case definition algorithms and describe the disease characteristics of the validation set.Results.Our reference standard identified 1028 patients with psoriasis and 77 patients with PsA, for an overall prevalence of 3.4% for psoriasis and 0.3% for PsA. Most patients with PsA (66%) had a rheumatology-confirmed diagnosis, while only 30% of the patients with psoriasis had dermatology-confirmed diagnosis. The use of systemic medications was much more common with PsA than with psoriasis. All algorithms had excellent specificity (97–100%). The sensitivity and positive predictive value were moderate and varied between different algorithms (34–72%).Conclusion.The accuracy of case definition algorithms for psoriasis and PsA varies widely. However, selected algorithms produced population prevalence estimates that were within the expected ranges, suggesting that they may be useful for future research purposes.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) affects up to 30% of patients with psoriasis and may include musculoskeletal manifestations such as enthesitis. Enthesitis is associated with joint damage, and early detection and treatment are essential to management of the disease. Traditionally assessed by clinical examination and conventional radiography, entheseal inflammation can now be more accurately assessed earlier in the disease using techniques such as ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and molecular imaging. However, there is little consensus on the optimum definition for diagnosing enthesitis in PsA or on the ideal scoring system for measuring response to treatment. This review aims to summarize the benefits and limitations of different imaging modalities in the assessment of enthesitis. It also proposes that adoption of standardized definitions and validation of scoring systems and imaging techniques in clinical trials will allow the efficacy of new treatment options to be assessed more accurately.

Objective.To quantify population-level and practice-level encounters with rheumatologists over time.Methods.We conducted a population-based study from 2000 to 2015 in Ontario, Canada, where all residents are covered by a single-payer healthcare system. Annual total number of unique patients seen by rheumatologists, the number of new patients seen, and total number of encounters with rheumatologists were identified.Results.From 2000 to 2015, the percentage of the population seen by rheumatologists was constant over time (2.7%). During this time, Ontario had a stable supply of rheumatologists (0.8 full-time equivalents/75,000). From 2000 to 2015, the number of annual rheumatology encounters increased from 561,452 to 786,061, but the adjusted encounter rates remained stable over time (at 62 encounters per 1000 population). New patient assessment rates declined over time from 10 new outpatient assessments per 1000 in 2000 to 6 per 1000 in 2015. The crude volume of new patients seen annually decreased and an increasing proportion of rheumatology encounters were with established patients. We observed a shift in patient case mix over time, with more assessments for systemic inflammatory conditions. Rheumatologists’ practice volumes, practice sizes, and the annual number of days providing clinical care decreased over time.Conclusion.Over a 15-year period, the annual percentage of the population seen by a rheumatologist remained constant and the volume of new patients decreased, while followup patient encounters increased. Patient encounters per rheumatologist decreased over time. Our findings provide novel information for rheumatology workforce planning. Factors affecting clinical activity warrant further research.

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA)-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Working Group reported at the 2018 GRAPPA annual meeting on the outcome of the OMERACT 2018 Conference in Terrigal, Australia. The working group presented the endorsement of the 66/68 joint count for the assessment of peripheral arthritis and the provisional endorsement of the PsA Impact of Disease 12 questionnaire for the assessment of PsA-specific health-related quality of life in PsA randomized controlled trials and observational studies. In this report, the group presents its plan to seek OMERACT endorsement for outcome measures that address the domains of MSK disease activity for enthesitis and dactylitis, physical function, fatigue, and structural damage following the OMERACT Filter 2.1 methodology.

Enthesitis is a key feature in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and may be the initial site of musculoskeletal inflammation in patients with PsA. Ultrasound (US) could improve the accuracy of clinical enthesitis assessment, but at present no consensus exists on a global sonographic enthesitis scoring method that can evaluate the extent of enthesitis at the patient level. The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) US Working Group has set up a goal to optimize the evaluation of enthesitis in patients with PsA using US through the development and validation of new instruments using a combined data-driven and expert opinion-driven approach. This article summarizes the GRAPPA US Working Group's recent activities and focuses on a 2-day workshop that the group held following the annual 2018 GRAPPA meeting in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Background While tender and swollen joint counts (TJC and SJC) are key instruments for the assessment of peripheral arthritis in PsA, little is known about the psychometric properties of TJC and SJC in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how these properties differ among patient subgroups. 1 Objectives To assess the responsiveness and discrimination of TJC and SJC in PsA using RCT datasets and evaluate subgroups of patients with early vs. established disease and 3 or less vs 4 or more active joints. Methods Patient-level data from 8 phase III RCTs and the TIght COntrol of Psoriatic Arthritis (TICOPA) trial were analyzed2. The standardized response mean (SRM, mean difference between baseline and follow up divided by the standard deviation (SD) of the mean difference) and standardized mean differences (SMD, mean difference in the treated group minus the mean difference in the placebo group divided by the pooled SD for the change) were used to address responsiveness and discrimination respectively. TJC28, SJC28, TJC68, and SJC66 were the primary measures of interest but physician and patient global assessments (PhGA and PtGA) and pain were included for comparison. SRMs were calculated in subgroups of patients with less than 3 (TJC68/SJC66 ≤ 3) or more than 3 (TJC68/SJC66) active joints as well as early ( Results In traditional phase III RCTs, TJC and SJC were responsive and had good clinical trial discrimination. SRMs were similar and ranged from -0.8 to -0.4 (‘moderate’ responsiveness) (Figure 1). SMDs were similar among SJC28 and SJC66 and likewise between TJC28 and TJC68 but mostly within the small effect range (-0.2 to -0.5; not shown). PhGA and PtGA had higher SMDs than the joint counts. SRMs were substantially lower for joint counts (and also PtGA) among the low compared with the higher joint count groups (Figure 2). There were no substantial differences in SRMs between patients with early and established disease. Conclusion Joint counts are responsive to change and have reasonable discrimination in RCTs among patients higher disease activity at baseline. However, joint counts may not be ideal outcome measures in oligoarticular disease and have lower responsiveness and discrimination in this subgroup. References [1] Duarte-Garcia et al. J Rheumatol 2019 In Press. [2] Coates et al. Lancet 2016 Acknowledgement Funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation; We would like to thank Janssen Scientific Affairs LLC, YODA (Yale Open Data Access) Project, UCB, Novartis, and Pfizer for their scientific partnership. Disclosure of Interests Ali Duarte-Garcia: None declared, Lihi Eder Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Amgen, Celgene, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Amgen, Celgene, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Niti Goel Shareholder of: Own stock options in Kezar Life Sciences., Employee of: Corporate officer of Kezar Life Sciences., Maarten de Wit: None declared, Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Oliver FitzGerald: None declared, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Ying Ying Leung Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Speakers bureau: Abbvie and Novartis, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Ana-Maria Orbai Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Horizon Pharma, Janssen, Lilly, and Novartis, Consultant for: Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Bev Shea Employee of: Salary partially paid by OMERACT, Vibeke Strand Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, CORRONA, Crescendo, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Horizon, Inmedix, Janssen, Kezar, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Servier, UCB., Philip Helliwell Grant/research support from: Paid to charity: from AbbVie, Janssen and Novartis, Consultant for: Paid to charity: from AbbVie, Amgen, Pfizer, and UCB and Celgene. Paid to self: from Celgene and Galapagos, Alisa Stephens-Shields: None declared, William Tillett Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, and Lilly, Consultant for: AbbVie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, and Pfizer, Laura C Coates Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences Inc., Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Prothena Corp and UCB, Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: (To my university) Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Takeda, Consultant for: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Consultant for: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda

Background In Psoriatic arthritis (PsA), the objective of treatment is remission or low disease which can be defined using the Disease Activity in PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) (ref1). We previously showed DAPSA was associated to patient-perceived good status (i.e., self-assessed remission or low disease, yes/no) (ref2). However, some discordance was noted between patient-perceived status and the composite score. This discordance may be linked to demographic elements (such as age, gender or country), disease activity components (such as skin involvement which is not assessed in DAPSA) or patient-reported outcomes (such as fatigue or depressive affects). A better understanding of this discordance would be helpful in the context of shared decision-making. Objectives To explore the drivers of discordance between patient-perceived remission or low disease and DAPSA-defined remission or low disease. Methods This is an analysis of the first visit of ReFlap (NCT03119805, ref2), an observational study in 14 countries of consecutive adult patients with definite PsA >2 years of disease duration. Discordance in assessment of remission/low disease status was defined as a disagreement between a specific patient question (are you in remission or low disease, yes/no) and DAPSA-defined remission/low disease (i.e., score Results Among 436 patients, mean age 52.3 (SD 12.5) years, mean disease duration 10.1 (8.1) years, 218 (50.8%) male; 259 (63.5%) were taking a conventional DMARD and 247 (60.5%) a biologic. Disease activity was moderate: 36.1% had no current psoriasis skin lesions and mean swollen joint count was 2.2 (7.1). Remission or low disease was frequent both using the patient question (N=286, 65.6%) and using DAPSA (N=246, 56.4%). Discordance between patient-reported status and DAPSA concerned 112 (25.7%) patients, of whom 76 (17.4% of 436) self-reporting REM/LDA, and 36 (8.3% of 436) reporting not being in REM/LDA. When exploring drivers of this discordance in univariate analyses, tender joint count, CRP, pain, fatigue and depression were significant. The multivariate analysis found CRP, pain and depression to be independent drivers of discordance (Table). Conclusion Remission or low disease appears to be an attainable outcome in PsA. Patients widely self-reported themselves as being in a similar status as the status indicated by the DAPSA score. Discordance in assessment concerned 25.7% patients and was mainly related to CRP (driving higher DAPSA), pain and fatigue (driving patient assessments). When faced with discordance in assessment, the health professional should assess these elements carefully. Reference [1] Schoels MM, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(5):811-8. 2. Gorlier C, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(2):201-208. Acknowledgement This study was funded by Pfizer through an investigator-initiated grant. Disclosure of Interests Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant for: L Gossec has received honoraria from Celgene as investigator for this study, Maarten de Wit: None declared, Laura C Coates Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences Inc., Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Prothena Corp and UCB, Umut Kalyoncu Grant/research support from: MSD, Roche, UCB, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant for: MSD, Abbvie, Roche, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer and Abdi Ibrahim, Speakers bureau: MSD, Abbvie, Roche, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer and Abdi Ibrahim, Emmanuelle Dernis: None declared, Adeline Ruyssen-Witrand: None declared, Ying Ying Leung Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Speakers bureau: Abbvie and Novartis, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Rossana Scrivo: None declared, Juan D. Canete: None declared, Penelope Palominos: None declared, Sandra Talli: None declared, Uta Kiltz Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB., Consultant for: AbbVie, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB., Martin SOUBRIER: None declared, Lihi Eder Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Amgen, Celgene, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Amgen, Celgene, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Ana-Maria Orbai Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Horizon Pharma, Janssen, Lilly, and Novartis, Consultant for: Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB

Background Ixekizumab (IXE) is a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin-17A. During 24 weeks (wks) of treatment, IXE resulted in significantly greater improvements versus placebo (PBO) in the signs and symptoms of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in two randomized Phase 3 studies.1,2 Objectives To evaluate the consistency of clinical response with IXE in demographic subsets of patients (pts) with active PsA. Methods Clinical response to IXE was analyzed from an integrated database of 2 randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 studies in biologic Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug (bDMARD)-naive (SPIRIT-P1) pts or in pts with prior inadequate response or intolerance to TNF inhibitors (SPIRIT-P2). Analyses were conducted on subgroups defined by sex, body mass index (BMI), and duration of disease ( Results Response rates at Wk 24 (Table) were significantly (p Conclusion IXE was superior to PBO in the treatment of pts with active PsA at Wk 24 regardless of sex or disease duration, as well as in normal, overweight, and obese BMI subgroups. References [1] Mease, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 [2] Nash, et al. Lancet. 2017 Disclosure of Interests Lihi Eder Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Amgen, Celgene, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Amgen, Celgene, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Satish Odhav Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Ardea Biosciences, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Genentech, GSK, Human Genome Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Mesoblast, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Consultant for: AbbVie, Ardea Biosciences, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Genentech, GSK, Human Genome Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Mesoblast, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Ardea Biosciences, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Genentech, GSK, Human Genome Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Mesoblast, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Mariusz Korkosz Consultant for: Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Roche, MSD, UCB, and AbbVie, Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Roche, MSD, UCB, and AbbVie, Aubrey Trevelin Sprabery Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Amanda M. Gellett Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Chen-Yen Lin Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, So Young Park Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Clinton C Bertram Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: (To my university) Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Takeda, Consultant for: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Consultant for: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda

Background: Physical function (PF) is a core domain to be measured in all trials for psoriatic arthritis (PsA); several instruments can be used but have not been compared. Objectives: To evaluate the longitudinal construct validities of 3 physical function patient-reported outcome measures (PF-PROMs): HAQ-disability index (HAQ-DI), physical functioning of SF12 (SF12-PF) and functional capacity of Psoriatic Arthritic Impact of Disease (PsAID-PF). Methods: The Remission/Flare in PsA (ReFlap) study (NCT03119805), is a prospective longitudinal study in 14 countries of consecutive adults with definite PsA collecting validated PsA outcomes. We assessed longitudinal construct validity using correlation between change scores of PF-PROMs with other assessments, according to a priori hypotheses. Responsiveness was assessed using the change of PF-PROMs anchored with patient-defined improvement/worsening at follow-up. We calculated the relative effectiveness statistic (RE=Standardized response mean, SRM2 ratios) for each PF-PROM comparing improved/worsened groups vs. no change at follow-up. Results: Of 466 subjects recruited, 405 completed follow-up (50.8% male, mean(SD) age = 52.7 (12.6) years). After a mean (SD) follow-up of 4.3 (2.7) months, 27.6%, 55.0% and 17.4% reported improvement, no change and worsening. All change scores of the PF-PROMs met the a priori hypotheses (Table 1). PF-PROMs change scores were statistically different for improved and worse group from the no change group (p Conclusion: Using data from this prospective longitudinal real-life study setting, HAQ-DI, SF12-PF and PsAID-PF fulfilled longitudinal construct validity for measurement of physical function in PsA. PsAID-PF had the highest responsiveness to change. These data will help to choose outcomes in PsA studies. δ determined by the best cut-off point using ROC curve; ¶ comparing to the no change group; **p Disclosure of Interests: Ying Ying Leung Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Speakers bureau: Abbvie and Novartis, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Ana-Maria Orbai Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Horizon Pharma, Janssen, Lilly, and Novartis, Consultant for: Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Maarten de Wit: None declared, Andra Balanescu Speakers bureau: multiple, Emmanuelle Dernis: None declared, Martin SOUBRIER: None declared, Lihi Eder Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Amgen, Celgene, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Amgen, Celgene, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB, Laura C Coates Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences Inc., Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Prothena Corp and UCB, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant for: L Gossec has received honoraria from Celgene as investigator for this study

Background:In psoriatic arthritis (PsA), EULAR recommendations are to aim for remission or low disease activity(1). Many treatments are now available, though some are costly and not widely available in all countries. Country of patient care, and in particular Gross Domestic Product (GDP) may be linked to PsA outcomes(2). Although patients with high disease activity are eligible for targeted therapies such as biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), they may not be able to get the benefits from these efficacious treatments in all countries equally.Objectives:The objective was to explore the rate of PsA patients with high to moderate disease activity, not receiving bDMARDs across countries, and to assess the consequences on functional incapacity.Methods:This was a cross-sectional analysis of an observational study (ReFlap, NCT03119805)(3), which included adult patients with PsA with ≥ 2 years disease duration from 14 countries. One country was excluded from this analysis since only 7 patients were included. We explored the rate of patients with significant disease activity (i.e based on DAPSA > 14) and no ongoing bDMARD prescription. Countries of inclusion were analysed separately, and classified into tertiles by GDP/capita (lowest tertile: Brazil, Turkey, Russia, Romania, Estonia; middle tertile: Spain, Italy, UK, France; highest tertile: Canada, Germany, USA and Singapore). The rate of no bDMARDs - DAPSA > 14 patients was analysed by country and compared between the 3 tertiles of GDP/capita by parametric tests. Functional capacity (HAQ) was compared between no bDMARDs - DAPSA > 14 patients and the other patients (pooling patients with moderate or high disease activity with bDMARD, low disease activity and remission with or without bDMARD). There was no imputation of missing data.Results:Of the 459 patients, 429 had complete data available and were analysed: mean age 52.3 (SD 12.6) years, mean disease duration 10.2 (SD 8.2) years, 215 (50.1%) males. The rate of no bDMARDs - DAPSA > 14 patients was 18.4% (76/414). The rate ranged from 7.4% (UK and Spain) to 40% (Russia): Figure 1. A link was seen with the country and the tertiles of countries according to GDP/capita, with higher rate of no bDMARDs - DAPSA > 14 patients in the lowest GDP/capita countries (28.8%, 15.3% and 14.3% in the 3 GDP/capita tertiles, respectively, p=0.005; Figure 1). Of note, 40/76 no bDMARDs - DAPSA > 14 patients received a treatment intensification during the visit. Among no bDMARDs - DAPSA > 14 patients, functional incapacity was higher than in the other patients, as expected (mean HAQ 0.96 (SD 0.64) vs 0.57 (SD 0.63), pFigure 1.The size of the bubbles represent the number of patients per country (range, 13 to 89). The horizontal lines represent the mean proportion of patients with no bDMARDs – DAPSA > 14 for each tertiles of countries by GDP/capita.Conclusion:In this exploratory comparison of disease patterns and treatments choices in 13 countries, we observed that more PsA patients with high or moderate disease activity and living in low GDP/capita countries were less likely to be treated with bDMARDs. As a consequence, no bDMARDs – DAPSA > 14 patients had worse functional incapacity. Equitable access to bDMARDs should be aimed for all patients regardless of their country of origin.References:[1]Gossec L et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79(6):700-712.[2]Gossec L et al. Are There Country Differences in Disease Activity and Life Impact of Psoriatic Arthritis? An Analysis of 436 Patients from 14 Countries [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71 (suppl 10).[3]Gorlier C et al. Comparing patient-perceived and physician-perceived remission and low disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: an analysis of 410 patients from 14 countries. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Feb;78(2):201-208.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.