The dynamics of response as measured by multiple composite outcome tools in the TIght COntrol of inflammation in early Psoriatic Arthritis (TICOPA) trial

Background: We aimed to evaluate the dynamics of treatment response with different composite measures in the TIght COntrol of inflammation in early Psoriatic Arthritis (TICOPA) trial. Methods: Participants with early disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were randomised 1:1 to either tight control (TC; 4 weekly review with therapy escalation if criteria not met) or standard care (SC; 12 weekly review). We calculated modified versions of the Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) Composite scorE (GRACE) and Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI) at baseline and 12 weekly to 48 weeks by blinded assessor. For missing data, we used the last observation carried forward. Comparison between groups was made by analysis of covariance and comparison of area under the curve (AUC). Results: 206 people were randomised to TC (n=101) or SC (n=105). Significant differences between treatment groups were seen (p<0.0001 for all composite measures). AUC analysis demonstrated a significant difference between groups for the PASDAS but not GRACE and CPDAI. For participants with oligoarthritis, a significant difference between groups was seen for each measure, although the significance levels were greatly diminished (PASDAS, p=0.04; GRACE p=0.01; CPDAI p=0.04). For oligoarthritis using AUC analysis, none of the measures could distinguish between groups. Conclusions: Composite measures of disease activity were able to distinguish between TICOPA treatment arms, although differences were diminished for those with oligoarthritis. Further data are needed to inform the preferred composite measure for use as the primary outcome in PsA trials

The dynamics of response as measured by multiple composite outcome tools in the TIght COntrol of inflammation in early Psoriatic Arthritis (TICOPA) trial

Background: We aimed to evaluate the dynamics of treatment response with different composite measures in the TIght COntrol of inflammation in early Psoriatic Arthritis (TICOPA) trial. Methods: Participants with early disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were randomised 1:1 to either tight control (TC; 4 weekly review with therapy escalation if criteria not met) or standard care (SC; 12 weekly review). We calculated modified versions of the Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) Composite scorE (GRACE) and Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI) at baseline and 12 weekly to 48 weeks by blinded assessor. For missing data, we used the last observation carried forward. Comparison between groups was made by analysis of covariance and comparison of area under the curve (AUC). Results: 206 people were randomised to TC (n=101) or SC (n=105). Significant differences between treatment groups were seen (p<0.0001 for all composite measures). AUC analysis demonstrated a significant difference between groups for the PASDAS but not GRACE and CPDAI. For participants with oligoarthritis, a significant difference between groups was seen for each measure, although the significance levels were greatly diminished (PASDAS, p=0.04; GRACE p=0.01; CPDAI p=0.04). For oligoarthritis using AUC analysis, none of the measures could distinguish between groups. Conclusions: Composite measures of disease activity were able to distinguish between TICOPA treatment arms, although differences were diminished for those with oligoarthritis. Further data are needed to inform the preferred composite measure for use as the primary outcome in PsA trials

Best-practice indicators in Psoriatic disease care

Objective: In 2016, members of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), in collaboration with KPMG LLP (UK), conducted a study to measure care in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). A key finding was that centers do not usually have processes in place to measure the effect of improved quality of care. Our objectives were to identify and select best-practice indicators to enable PsA caregivers to assess and monitor the outcomes of specific initiatives aimed at improving care in 4 focus areas: (1) shortening time to diagnosis; (2) improving multidisciplinary collaboration; (3) optimizing disease management; and (4) improving disease monitoring. Methods: (1) Structured review of scientific and grey literature to obtain evidence for a long list of 100 potential indicators across the 4 focus areas; (2) survey expert rheumatologists and dermatologists to review the long list and identify the most meaningful and feasible indicators for use in day-to-day practice; (3) consensus discussion to identify a shortlist of indicators based on predefined selection criteria; (4) electronic group discussion to refine definitions of shortlisted indicators and targets; and (5) review of the shortlisted indicators at the annual GRAPPA meeting in July 2018 to ensure the indicators meet the preliminary criteria. Results: The expert group arrived at a consensus with a shortlist of 8 best-practice indicators across 4 key focus areas aligned with the patient pathway. Conclusion: There were 8 evidence-based best-practice indicators and respective targets that were identified to enable the monitoring of quality of care and target improvements

BSR Spondyloarthritis Course, 27 February 2020. Spondyloarthritis: pathogenesis, diagnosis and management

High-quality continuous medical education is essential to maintain excellence in health-care delivery, upskilling professionals and improving patient outcomes. This is particularly relevant when addressing rare disease groups, such as the spondyloarthritides, a group of heterogeneous inflammatory conditions that affect joints and other organs, such as the skin, bowel and eye. Professional bodies, such as the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR), are well placed to deliver this type of education. In 2020, the BSR ran a dedicated SpA course aimed at rheumatology health-care professionals wishing to update their basic knowledge of SpA with a review of the latest advances in the field. Here, we summarize the proceedings of the meeting and discuss the value of such an initiative

The GOLMePsA study protocol: an investigator-initiated, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial of GOLimumab and methotrexate versus methotrexate in early diagnosed psoriatic arthritis using clinical and whole body MRI outcomes

Background: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis which impacts significantly on the quality of life and work capacity of affected individuals. Recent evidence has shown that early control of inflammation in PsA leads to improved long-term outcomes. It is postulated that prompt intervention after diagnosis using a remission-induction treatment strategy will lead to improved outcomes and optimal disease control of PsA. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical efficacy of a treatment strategy in newly diagnosed, treatment naïve PsA subjects, using the combination of golimumab (GOL), methotrexate (MTX) and steroids versus standard care (MTX monotherapy plus steroids). Methods/design: GOLMePsA is an investigator initiated, phase IIIb, single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-armed, parallel-group, imaging-supplemented study. Eighty-eight PsA patients, diagnosed within 24 months prior to screening and treatment naïve, will be randomised at baseline to receive: (arm 1) the combination of intramuscular/intra-articular prednisolone, MTX and GOL or (arm 2) the combination of intramuscular/intra-articular prednisolone, MTX and placebo for 24 weeks (interventional period). Primary outcome measure is clinical improvement (at least 1 unit difference) in the Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) composite index. Reflecting a “step down” therapeutic approach, all participants successfully completing the interventional period will be followed up for a further 28 weeks. During this observational period, stable maintenance MTX monotherapy will continue for both arms, unless in case of intolerance or PsA relapse. In the latter case, additional treatment will be provided. Overall, the GOLMePsA study length is planned to be 52 weeks. Discussion: The hypothesis underlining this study is that very early treatment with first-line GOL reduces disease activity in PsA, in comparison to conventional therapy. Trial registration: EudraCT 2013–004122-28. 24/09/2013

'Choosing shoes': a preliminary study into the challenges facing clinicians in assessing footwear for rheumatoid patients

Background: Footwear has been accepted as a therapeutic intervention for the foot affected by rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Evidence relating to the objective assessment of footwear in patients with RA is limited. The aims of this study were to identify current footwear styles, footwear characteristics, and factors that influence footwear choice experienced by patients with RA. Methods: Eighty patients with RA were recruited from rheumatology clinics during the summer months. Clinical characteristics, global function, and foot impairment and disability measures were recorded. Current footwear, footwear characteristics and the factors associated with choice of footwear were identified. Suitability of footwear was recorded using pre-determined criteria for assessing footwear type, based on a previous study of foot pain. Results: The patients had longstanding RA with moderate-to severe disability and impairment. The foot and ankle assessment demonstrated a low-arch profile with both forefoot and rearfoot structural deformities. Over 50% of shoes worn by patients were opentype footwear. More than 70% of patients’ footwear was defined as being poor. Poor footwear characteristics such as heel rigidity and sole hardness were observed. Patients reported comfort (17%) and fit (14%) as important factors in choosing their own footwear. Only five percent (5%) of patients wore therapeutic footwear. Conclusions: The majority of patients with RA wear footwear that has been previously described as poor. Future work needs to aim to define and justify the specific features of footwear that may be of benefit to foot health for people with RA

Impact of guselkumab, an interleukin-23 p19 subunit inhibitor, on enthesitis and dactylitis in patients with moderate to severe psoriatic arthritis: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase II study

Objective To evaluate the effect of guselkumab on enthesitis and dactylitis in a phase II trial of patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods This was a phase II, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of adults with active PsA (≥3 swollen and ≥3 tender joints and C reactive protein ≥0.3 mg/dL) despite conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and/or oral corticosteroid therapy. Patients were randomised to subcutaneous injections of guselkumab 100 mg or placebo at weeks 0, 4 and every 8 weeks, with placebo crossover to guselkumab at week 24. Dactylitis was scored on a scale of 0–3 on each digit; enthesitis was assessed using the Leeds Enthesitis Index (0–6). Other assessments included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index responses. Results Of 149 randomised patients, 107 patients had enthesitis (mean score=2.7) and 81 patients had dactylitis (mean dactylitis score=5.7) at baseline. Mean improvements in enthesitis and dactylitis at week 24 were greater in the guselkumab group versus placebo and sustained through week 56. Similar results were observed for the proportions of patients with resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis. At week 56, mean improvements in enthesitis and dactylitis among patients who switched from placebo to guselkumab treatment were similar to those in the guselkumab group. In the guselkumab group, ACR20 responders had greater improvements in enthesitis and dactylitis versus non-responders (week 24). Conclusions At week 24, the guselkumab group had greater mean improvements in enthesitis and dactylitis and greater proportions of patients with resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis versus placebo. ACR20 response was associated with improvements in enthesitis and dactylitis

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Adult Patients with SAPHO Syndrome: Controversies Revealed in a Multidisciplinary International Survey of Physicians

Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the current practice in the diagnosis and treatment of SAPHO syndrome among the international rheumatology and dermatology communities. Methods: We conducted an electronic survey among the members of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), the Japan Spondyloarthritis, and Israeli Societies of Rheumatology. Results: A total of 78 physicians participated in the survey: rheumatologists (83%, n = 65), dermatologists (11.5%, n = 9), and orthopedics (3.8%, n = 3). SAPHO was considered a subtype of spondyloarthritis by 48.7% (n = 38), a subtype of psoriatic arthritis by 19.2% (n = 15), a separate entity by 25.6% (n = 20), and a subtype of reactive arthritis by 6.4% (n = 5). Palmoplantar pustulosis was the most prevalent cutaneous manifestation (n = 44, 56.4%) and anterior chest pain—the most prevalent osteoarticular manifestation (n = 66, 84.6%). The majority (84.6%, n = 66) voted for the update of the present diagnostic criteria by Khan 1994. Magnetic resonance imaging was considered the preferred imaging modality for the diagnosis of SAPHO by 41% (n = 32). Conduction of bone biopsy for diagnosis of non-infectious osteitis was supported only by 10.3% (n = 8). Patient-reported outcomes were considered the most appropriate measure for the assessment of disease activity by 47.4% (n = 37). The treatment approach was overall similar among the rheumatology and dermatology communities, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, bisphosphonates, conventional disease-modifying anti-inflammatory drugs, and biologics. Conclusions: Our study underlines the controversy on diagnosis and treatment of SAPHO syndrome among specialists in rheumatology and dermatology and emphasizes an unmet need for update and validation of diagnostic criteria and treatment approach

Etanercept and Methotrexate as Monotherapy or in Combination for Psoriatic Arthritis: Primary Results From a Randomized, Controlled Phase III Trial

Objective: To examine the efficacy of methotrexate monotherapy relative to etanercept monotherapy and the value of combining methotrexate and etanercept for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods: In this double‐blind study, 851 patients with PsA were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms, as follows: oral methotrexate (20 mg) plus subcutaneous placebo given weekly (n = 284), subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg) plus oral placebo given weekly (n = 284), or subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg) plus oral methotrexate (20 mg) given weekly (combination therapy; n = 283). The American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) response and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) response at week 24 were the primary end point and key secondary end point, respectively. Other measures of inflammatory arthritis, radiographic progression, and nonarticular disease manifestations were also assessed. Results: Patients with PsA had a mean ± SD age of 48.4 ± 13.1 years, and the mean ± SD duration of PsA was 3.2 ± 6.3 years (median 0.6 years). ACR20 and MDA response rates at week 24 were significantly greater in patients who received etanercept monotherapy compared with those who received methotrexate monotherapy (ACR20, 60.9% versus 50.7% of patients [P = 0.029]; MDA, 35.9% versus 22.9% of patients [P = 0.005]), and both were significantly greater in the combination therapy group compared with the methotrexate monotherapy group at week 24 (ACR20, 65.0% versus 50.7% of patients [P = 0.005]; MDA, 35.7% versus 22.9% of patients [P = 0.005]). Other secondary outcomes (ACR50 and ACR70 response rates, proportions of patients achieving a Very Low Disease Activity score, and PsA disease activity scores) showed between‐group differences that were consistent with the primary and key secondary end point results. Furthermore, patients in both etanercept treatment arms showed less radiographic progression at week 48 compared with patients who received methotrexate monotherapy. Outcomes were similar in the combination therapy and etanercept monotherapy groups, except for some skin end points. No new safety signals were seen. Conclusion: Etanercept monotherapy and combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate showed greater efficacy than methotrexate monotherapy in patients with PsA, according to the ACR and MDA response rates and extent of radiographic progression at follow‐up. Overall, combining methotrexate and etanercept did not improve the efficacy of etanercept

Clinical Examination, Ultrasound and MRI Imaging of The Painful Elbow in Psoriatic Arthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis: Which is Better, Ultrasound or MR, for Imaging Enthesitis?

Introduction: The purpose of the current study was to examine the painful elbow, and in particular enthesitis, in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using clinical examination, ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods: Patients with elbow pain (11 with PsA and 9 with RA) were recruited. Clinical examination, US and MRI studies were performed on the same day. For enthesitis, the common extensor and flexor insertions and the triceps insertion were imaged (20 patients, giving a total of 60 sites with comparative data). Imaging was performed with the radiologists blinded to the diagnosis and clinical findings. US was used to assess ‘inflammatory activity’ (Power Doppler signal, oedema, tendon thickening and bursal swelling) and ‘damage’ (erosions, cortical roughening and enthesophytes). MRI was used to assess ‘inflammation’ (fluid in paratenon, peri-entheseal soft-tissue oedema, entheseal enhancement with gadolinium, entheseal oedema and bone oedema) and ‘damage’ (erosion, cortical roughening and enthesophyte). Results: Complete scan data were not available for all patients as one patient could not tolerate the MRI examination. No significant differences in imaging scores were found between PsA and RA. Analysis of damage scores revealed complete agreement between US and MRI data in 43/55 (78%) comparisons; in 10/55 (18%) cases the US data were abnormal but the MRI data normal; in 2/55 (4%) cases, the MRI data were abnormal and the US data normal. Analysis of the inflammation scores revealed complete agreement between US and MRI data in 33/55 (60%) comparisons; in 3/55 (5%) cases US data were abnormal but MRI data normal; in 19/55 (35%) cases the MRI data were abnormal and the US data normal. There was a poor relationship between assessments based on clinical examination and imaging studies. Readers could not accurately identify the disease from imaging findings. Conclusion: Based on our results, at the elbow, US and MR have different roles in assessing enthesitis, with US apparently the better diagnostic tool for assessing damage and MR the better tool for assessing inflammation. In this study enthesitis and synovitis in the painful elbow were found equally in cases of established RA and PsA