Search

Objectives To examine associations between PsA and psoriasis vs lifestyle factors and comorbidities by triangulating observational and genetic evidence. Methods We analysed cross-sectional data from the UK Biobank (1836 PsA, 8995 psoriasis, 36 000 controls) to describe the association between psoriatic disease and lifestyle factors (including BMI and smoking) and 15 comorbidities [including diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD)] using logistic models adjusted for age, sex and lifestyle factors. We applied bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) to genome-wide association data (3609 PsA and 7804 psoriasis cases, up to 1.2 million individuals for lifestyle factors and 757 601 for comorbidities) to examine causal direction, using the inverse-variance weighted method. Results BMI was cross-sectionally associated with risk of PsA (OR 1.31 per 5 kg/m2 increase; 95% CI 1.26, 1.37) and psoriasis (OR 1.23; 1.20, 1.26), with consistent MR estimates (PsA OR 1.38; 1.14, 1.67; psoriasis OR 1.36; 1.18, 1.58). In both designs, smoking was more strongly associated with psoriasis than PsA. PsA and psoriasis were cross-sectionally associated with diabetes (OR 1.35 and 1.39, respectively) and CAD (OR 1.56 and 1.38, respective). Genetically predicted glycated haemoglobin (surrogate for diabetes) increased PsA risk (OR 1.18 per 6.7 mmol/mol increase; 1.02, 1.36) but not psoriasis. Genetic liability to PsA (OR 1.05; 1.003, 1.09) and psoriasis (OR 1.03; 1.001, 1.06) were associated with increased risk of CAD. Conclusion Observational and genetic evidence converge to suggest that BMI and glycaemic control are associated with increased psoriatic disease risk, while psoriatic disease is associated with increased CAD risk. Further research is needed to understand the mechanism of these associations.

Objective: To compare incidences of neuroinflammatory events, including demyelinating disease (DML), inflammatory polyneuropathies (IPN) and multiple sclerosis (MS), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA; including psoriatic arthritis) starting a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), investigating whether monoclonal TNFi antibodies (other TNFis (oTNFis)) confer higher risk than etanercept.Methods: This is an observational cohort study including patients from the five Nordic countries starting a TNFi in 2001-2020. Time to first neuroinflammatory event was identified through register linkages. We calculated crude incidence rates (cIR) per 1000 person-years and used multivariable-adjusted Cox regression to compare incidences of neuroinflammatory events overall and for DML, IPN and MS with oTNFi versus etanercept. We further examined individual TNFis and indications.Results: 33 883 patients with RA and 28 772 patients with SpA were included, initiating 52 704 and 46 572 treatment courses, respectively. In RA, we observed 135 neuroinflammatory events (65% DML) with cIR of 0.38 with oTNFi and 0.34 with etanercept. The HR of oTNFi versus etanercept was 1.07 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.54) for any neuroinflammatory event, 0.79 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.22) for DML, 2.20 (95% CI 1.05 to 4.63) for IPN and 0.73 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.56) for MS. In SpA, we observed 179 events (78% DML) with cIR of 0.68 with oTNFi and 0.65 with etanercept. The HR for any neuroinflammatory event, DML, IPN and MS was 1.06 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.50), 1.01 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.50), 1.28 (95% CI 0.61 to 2.69) and 0.94 (95% CI0.53 to 1.69), respectively.Conclusion: The cIRs of neuroinflammatory events are higher in SpA than in RA, but the choice of specific TNFi does not seem to play an important role in the risk of neuroinflammatory events. Objective To compare incidences of neuroinflammatory events, including demyelinating disease (DML), inflammatory polyneuropathies (IPN) and multiple sclerosis (MS), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA; including psoriatic arthritis) starting a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), investigating whether monoclonal TNFi antibodies (other TNFis (oTNFis)) confer higher risk than etanercept. Methods This is an observational cohort study including patients from the five Nordic countries starting a TNFi in 2001-2020. Time to first neuroinflammatory event was identified through register linkages. We calculated crude incidence rates (cIR) per 1000 person-years and used multivariable-adjusted Cox regression to compare incidences of neuroinflammatory events overall and for DML, IPN and MS with oTNFi versus etanercept. We further examined individual TNFis and indications. Results 33 883 patients with RA and 28 772 patients with SpA were included, initiating 52 704 and 46 572 treatment courses, respectively. In RA, we observed 135 neuroinflammatory events (65% DML) with cIR of 0.38 with oTNFi and 0.34 with etanercept. The HR of oTNFi versus etanercept was 1.07 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.54) for any neuroinflammatory event, 0.79 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.22) for DML, 2.20 (95% CI 1.05 to 4.63) for IPN and 0.73 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.56) for MS. In SpA, we observed 179 events (78% DML) with cIR of 0.68 with oTNFi and 0.65 with etanercept. The HR for any neuroinflammatory event, DML, IPN and MS was 1.06 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.50), 1.01 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.50), 1.28 (95% CI 0.61 to 2.69) and 0.94 (95% CI0.53 to 1.69), respectively. Conclusion The cIRs of neuroinflammatory events are higher in SpA than in RA, but the choice of specific TNFi does not seem to play an important role in the risk of neuroinflammatory events.

Objectives: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has a strong genetic component, and the identification of genetic risk factors could help identify the ~30% of psoriasis patients at high risk of developing PsA. Our objectives were to identify genetic risk factors and pathways that differentiate PsA from cutaneous-only psoriasis (PsC) and to evaluate the performance of PsA risk prediction models. Methods: Genome-wide meta-analyses were conducted separately for 5,065 patients with PsA and 21,286 healthy controls and separately for 4,340 patients with PsA and 6,431 patients with PsC. The heritability of PsA was calculated as a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)–based heritability estimate (h2SNP) and biologic pathways that differentiate PsA from PsC were identified using Priority Index software. The generalizability of previously published PsA risk prediction pipelines was explored, and a risk prediction model was developed with external validation. Results: We identified a novel genome-wide significant susceptibility locus for the development of PsA on chromosome 22q11 (rs5754467; P = 1.61 × 10−9), and key pathways that differentiate PsA from PsC, including NF-κB signaling (adjusted P = 1.4 × 10−45) and Wnt signaling (adjusted P = 9.5 × 10−58). The heritability of PsA in this cohort was found to be moderate (h2SNP = 0.63), which was similar to the heritability of PsC (h2SNP = 0.61). We observed modest performance of published classification pipelines (maximum area under the curve 0.61), with similar performance of a risk model derived using the current data. Conclusion: Key biologic pathways associated with the development of PsA were identified, but the investigation of risk classification revealed modest utility in the available data sets, possibly because many of the PsC patients included in the present study were receiving treatments that are also effective in PsA. Future predictive models of PsA should be tested in PsC patients recruited from primary care.

BackgroundNo gold-standard diagnostic test for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) exists. The diagnosis relies on different patterns of symptom involvement which can mimic other arthritides such as hand osteoarthritis (OA). We aimed to investigate if ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and X-Ray applied to the distal interphalangeal (DIP)-joint and synovio-entheseal complex (SEC) can be used to discriminate between patients with PsA, skin psoriasis (PsO) and OA.MethodsIn this prospective, cross-sectional study, patients with DIP-joint PsA and nail involvement (n=50), PsO with nail involvement (n=12); and OA (n=13); were consecutively recruited. Risk ratios (RR) and odds ratios were calculated for US, MRI and X-ray findings of the DIP-joint and SEC between diagnoses.ResultsNew bone formation (NBF) assessed by US and MRI was a hallmark of OA, reducing the risk of having PsA (RR 0.52 (CI95% 0.43 to 0.63) and 0.64 (CI95% 0.56 to 0.74). The OA group was different from PsA and PsO on all MRI semiquantitative and X-ray outcomes reflected in a much lower RR of having PsA; RR ranging from 0.20 (CI95% 0.13 to 0.31) for MRI bone marrow oedema to 0.85 (CI95% 0.80 to 0.90) in X-ray entheseal bone-change. No outcome in US, MRI or X-ray was associated with a higher risk of PsA versus PsO, although the damage grade was higher in PsA.ConclusionsThe differentiation between PsA, PsO, and OA using US, MRI and X-ray is possible based on the grade of structural disease involvement using semiquantitative OMERACT US scores, MRI PsAMRIS score and X-ray score. A high grade of US, MRI and X-ray NBF and MRI bone marrow oedema reduce the RR of having PsA compared to OA. In demarcating PsA from PsO patients, it is of significance if they present with X-ray enthesitis and a high degree of US erosions and NBF or MRI synovitis-, tenosynovitis-, erosion score or bone marrow oedema.

ObjectiveTo characterise the impact of dactylitis in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive early psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsPatients with early PsA meeting the classification criteria for PsA (CASPAR) were recruited. Clinical outcomes were recorded, and ultrasonography was conducted to assess grey scale (GS) and power Doppler (PD) synovitis, periarticular cortical bone erosions and enthesitis. The cohort was dichotomised by the presence or absence of dactylitis.ResultsOf 177 patients with PsA, those with dactylitis (dactylitic PsA (81/177, 46%)) had higher tender joint count (pConclusionDactylitis signifies a more severe disease phenotype independently associated with an increased disease burden with greater SJC, CRP, US-detected synovitis and bone erosions in DMARD-naive early PsA and may be a useful discriminator for early risk stratification.

ObjectivesTo investigate the influence of gender on disease outcomes in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA), including across SpA subtypes.MethodsData from 4185 patients of 23 countries with a diagnosis of axial SpA (axSpA), peripheral SpA (pSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS)-perSpA study were analysed. Associations between gender and disease activity (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (BASDAI), C-reactive protein (CRP)), function (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI)) and overall health (ASAS Health Index (ASAS HI), European Quality of Life Five Dimension (EQ-5D)) outcomes were investigated. Multilevel multivariable linear mixed models adjusted for relevant confounders (and stratified by disease subtype in case of a relevant interaction) were used.ResultsIn total, 65%, 10% and 25% of patients had axSpA, pSpA and PsA, respectively. axSpA was more frequent in males (68%), whereas pSpA and PsA were more frequent in females (53% and 52%, respectively). A significant interaction between gender and disease subtype was found for ASDAS, BASDAI and BASFI. While being female independently contributed to higher BASDAI across the three disease subtypes (with varying magnitude), female gender was only associated with higher ASDAS in pSpA (β (95% CI): 0.36 (0.15 to 0.58)) and PsA (0.25 (0.12 to 0.38)) but not in axSpA (0.016 (−0.07 to 0.11)). No associations were observed between gender and CRP levels. Female gender was associated with higher ASAS HI and EQ-5D, without differences across disease subtype.ConclusionFemale gender is associated with less favourable outcome measures across the SpA spectrum. However, while female gender influences BASDAI across the three subtypes, ASDAS is associated with gender only in pSpA and PsA but not in axSpA. Therefore, ASDAS is an appropriate instrument both for females and males with axSpA.

BACKGROUND: Pain is inherent in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA) and traditionally considered to be of nociceptive origin. Emerging data suggest a potential role of augmented central pain mechanisms in subsets of patients, thus, valid instruments that can identify underlying pain mechanisms are needed. The painDETECT questionnaire (PDQ) was originally designed to differentiate between pain phenotypes. The objectives were to evaluate the psychometric properties of the PDQ in patients with inflammatory arthritis by applying Rasch analysis and to explore the reliability of pain classification by test-retest.METHODS: For the Rasch analysis 900 questionnaires from patients with RA, PsA and SpA (300 per diagnosis) were extracted from 'the DANBIO painDETECT study'. The analysis was directed at the seven items assessing somatosensory symptoms and included: 1) the performance of the six-category Likert scale; 2) whether a unidimensional construct was defined; 3) the reliability and precision of estimates. Another group of 30 patients diagnosed with RA, PsA or SpA participated in a test-retest study. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) and classification consistency were calculated.RESULTS: The Rasch analysis revealed: (1) Acceptable psychometric rating scale properties; the frequency distribution peaked in category 0 except for item 5, threshold calibration >10 observations per category, no disorder in the category measures for all items, scale category outfit Mnsq CONCLUSION: The results support that the PDQ can be used as a classification instrument and assist identification of underlying pain-mechanisms in patients suffering from inflammatory arthritis.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other inflammatory joint disorders (IJD) have increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk compared with the general population. In 2009, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce recommended screening, identification of CVD risk factors and CVD risk management largely based on expert opinion. In view of substantial new evidence, an update was conducted with the aim of producing CVD risk management recommendations for patients with IJD that now incorporates an increasing evidence base. A multidisciplinary steering committee (representing 13 European countries) comprised 26 members including patient representatives, rheumatologists, cardiologists, internists, epidemiologists, a health professional and fellows. Systematic literature searches were performed and evidence was categorised according to standard guidelines. The evidence was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Three overarching principles were defined. First, there is a higher risk for CVD in patients with RA, and this may also apply to ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. Second, the rheumatologist is responsible for CVD risk management in patients with IJD. Third, the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids should be in accordance with treatment-specific recommendations from EULAR and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society. Ten recommendations were defined, of which one is new and six were changed compared with the 2009 recommendations. Each designated an appropriate evidence support level. The present update extends on the evidence that CVD risk in the whole spectrum of IJD is increased. This underscores the need for CVD risk management in these patients. These recommendations are defined to provide assistance in CVD risk management in IJD, based on expert opinion and scientific evidence.

It is now well established that psoriatic disease is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Screening guidelines and expert recommendations for CV risk factors have been published, but these are primarily directed to specific specialists (e.g., cardiologists or diabetologists) and may not be well known in common practice. The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) and other organizations are interested in adapting current comorbidity screening guidelines for use by dermatologists and rheumatologists. The resulting checklists and algorithms will need to be evaluated for practicability and performance.

Methotrexate is a widely used disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug. Its effectiveness has been proven in placebo-controlled trials and in compari- son with other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. The pharmacokinetics of methotrexate are highly variable and unpredictable. In patients with normal renal function, the recommended dose in rheumatoid arthritis ranges between 7.5 and 15 mg/week, but in recent years, even dosages up to 25 mg weekly are used. Toxicity includes myelosuppres- sion, gastrointestinal adverse effects, hepatotoxicity and pneumonitis. Renal impairment and age are considered major risk factors for developing methotrexate toxicity, but studies show conflicting results. Whether methotrexate can be administered to patients with end-stage kidney disease has not been formally tested. The present case illustrates the severe side effects of low-dose methotrexate treatment in a patient with end-stage kidney disease. Seven other cases have reported similar and even more severe and irreversible consequences after low-dose regimen. In view of these side effects we strongly recommend to monitor toxicity rigorously in patients with stage 3 or stage 4 kidney disease and not to use methotrexate in patients with stage 5 kidney disease.