Search

Objective To assess current evidence for effectiveness of sequential lines of biologic and targeted small-molecule disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) when used beyond first-line for psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods A systematic search of the literature (Medline, Embase, bibliographic searches) was undertaken (October and December 2022) to find studies meeting the criteria of assessing effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs beyond first-line in adults with PsA (PROSPERO CRD42022365298). Risk of bias assessment was undertaken (ROBINS-I/Cochrane RoB2). Results Of 2666 abstracts identified and following a full text review of 177 psoriatic disease studies, 12 manuscripts and two abstracts were eligible. Of the 12 manuscripts, 11 were observational and one was a sub-analysis of a RCT (n  = 16 081: average age 49.5 years, female 53.3%). Two abstracts (n  = 7186) were included. All studies comparing first- and second-line (three studies) found a reduced response in second-line. On average, DAPSA remission (most reported outcome, eight studies) was achieved in 26%, 19% and 10% first-, second- and third-line TNFi, and 22%, 13% and 11% first-, second- and third-line other bDMARDs, respectively. Responses varied to third-line bDMARDs; four studies found comparable second- and third-line responses, five studies found diminishing responses in sequential lines. Conclusion Predominantly observational studies, inherently at high risk of bias, indicate bDMARDs can be effective to third-line in PsA, but that response is reduced after first line. There is very limited data for more advanced lines of b/tsDMARD. Prospective studies are required to better understand clinical response to advanced lines of treatment in PsA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of the Severe Psoriatic arthritis – Early intervEntion to control Disease trial is to compare outcomes in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients with poor prognostic factors treated with standard step-up conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), combination csDMARDs or a course of early biologics. Design: This multicentre UK trial was embedded within the MONITOR-PsA cohort, which uses a trial within cohort design. Methods and analysis: Patients with newly diagnosed PsA and at least one poor prognostic factor (polyarthritis, C-reactive protein >5 mg/dL, health assessment questionnaire >1, radiographic erosions) were randomized equally and open-label to either standard care with 'step-up' csDMARD therapy, initial therapy with combination csDMARDs (methotrexate with either sulfasalazine or leflunomide) or to early biologics induction therapy (adalimumab plus methotrexate). The primary outcome is the PsA disease activity score at week 24. Ethics: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the South Central Research Ethics Committee (ref 18/SC/0107). Discussion: Treatment recommendations for PsA suggest more intensive therapy for those with poor prognostic factors but there are no studies that have previously used prognostic factors to guide therapy. Applying initial intensive therapy has shown improved outcomes in other inflammatory arthritides but has never been tried in PsA. Combination csDMARDs have shown some superiority over single therapies but there are limited data and concerns about side effects. Early use of biologics has also been shown to be superior to methotrexate but these drugs are costly and not usually funded first line. However, if a short course of biologics can rapidly suppress inflammation allowing treatment to be withdrawn and response maintained on methotrexate, this may be a cost-effective model for early use. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03739853) and EudraCT (2017-004542-24). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The objective of this study was to compare the performance of three PsA screening questionnaires in a primary care psoriasis surveillance study. Methods Participants with psoriasis, and not known to have PsA, were identified from general practice databases and invited to attend a secondary care centre for a clinical assessment. The three patient-completed screening questionnaires (PEST, CONTEST and CONTESTjt) were administered, along with other patient-reported measures, and a clinical examination of skin and joints was performed. Participants who demonstrated signs of inflammatory arthritis suggestive of PsA were referred, via their GP, for a further assessment in a secondary care rheumatology clinic. Results A total of 791 participants attended the screening visit, and 165 participants were judged to have signs and symptoms of inflammatory arthritis, of which 150 were referred for assessment. Of these, 126 were seen and 48 were diagnosed with PsA. The results for each questionnaire were as follows: PEST: sensitivity 0.625 (95% CI 0.482, 0.749), specificity 0.757 (0.724, 0.787); CONTEST: sensitivity 0.604 (0.461, 0.731), specificity 0.768 (0.736, 0.798); and CONTESTjt: sensitivity 0.542 (0.401, 0.676), specificity 0.834 (0.805, 0.859). CONTESTjt demonstrated marginally superior specificity to PEST, though the area under the ROC curve was similar for all three instruments. Conclusion Minimal differences between the three screening questionnaires were found in this study, and no preferred questionnaire is indicated by these results. The choice of which instrument to choose will depend on other factors, such as simplicity and low patient burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Historically, predators have been classified into two broad categories based upon how they search for and acquire prey. Active foragers move extensively through the environment in search of prey, while ambush foragers 'sit-and-wait' in carefully selected positions for prey to pass within striking range. The clear difference in energetic demands between these strategies is expected to correlate with significant differences in the time species allocate to various behaviors. According to this energetics hypothesis, ambush foragers should exhibit reduced movement and space use relative to co-occurring active foragers, especially those of similar size. Snakes represent unique and traditionally overlooked model organisms for exploring these associations, particularly the interplay between movement, foraging mode, and thermal preferences. Radio telemetry has represented the primary tool for measuring snake movement and space use since the 1980's, however, coarse measures of activity based on straight-line distances between relocation points hinder examination of the mechanisms that shape movement patterns at finer temporal scales. Our case study capitalizes on recently validated procedures integrating radio telemetry and accelerometry for continuous monitoring and recording of the spatial and temporal dimensions of movement behavior in snakes. Specifically, we will carry out an improved test of the energetics hypothesis by exploring associations between movement behavior, energetic requirements, and thermal profiles in ambush-foraging Timber Rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus) and active-foraging Rat Snakes (Pantherophis alleghaniensis). This project will provide a blue-print for future hypothesis-driven studies on movement behavior in small and secretive species using emerging animal-borne datalogging technologies., Acknowledgements GCSU Department of Biology Recommended Citation Authors William L. Tillett II, Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville GA 31061 Follow Parker L. Wilson, Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville [...]