Psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis: Is all inflammation the same?

AbstractObjectivesTo review the pathophysiology, co-morbidities, and therapeutic options for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in order to further understand the similarities and differences in treatment paradigms in the management of each disease. New targets for individualized therapeutic decisions are also identified with the aim of improving therapeutic outcome and reducing toxicity.Search strategyUsing the PubMed database, we searched literature published from 2000 to 2015 using combinations of the key words “psoriasis,” “psoriatic arthritis,” “rheumatoid arthritis,” “pathogenesis,” “immunomodulation,” and “treatment.”Inclusion and exclusion criteriaThis was a non-systematic review and there were no formal inclusion and exclusion criteria.Data extractionAbstracts identified in the search were screened for relevance and articles considered appropriate evaluated further. References within these selected articles were also screened. Information was extracted from 198 articles for inclusion in this report.Data synthesisThere was no formal data synthesis. Articles were reviewed and summarized according to disease area (psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis).Headline resultsThe pathophysiology of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis involves chronic inflammation mediated by pro-inflammatory cytokines. Dysfunction in integrated signaling pathways affecting different constituents of the immune system result in varying clinical features in the three diseases. Co-morbidities, including cardiovascular disease, malignancies, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are increased. Increased understanding of the immunopathogenesis allowed development of targeted treatments; however, despite a variety of potentially predictive genetic, protein and cellular biomarkers, there is still significant unmet need in these three inflammatory disorders

Exercise therapy after corticosteroid injection for moderate to severe shoulder pain: large pragmatic randomised trial

Objective To compare the effectiveness of subacromial corticosteroid injection combined with timely exercise and manual therapy (injection plus exercise) or exercise and manual therapy alone (exercise only) in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome

Performance of composite measures used in a trial of etanercept and methotrexate as monotherapy or in combination in psoriatic arthritis

Objectives: To examine which composite measures are most sensitive to change when measuring psoriatic arthritis (PsA) disease activity, analyses compared the responsiveness of composite measures used in a 48-week randomized, controlled trial of MTX and etanercept in patients with PsA. Methods: The trial randomised 851 patients to receive weekly: MTX (20 mg/week), etanercept (50 mg/week) or MTX plus etanercept. Dichotomous composite measures examined included ACR 20/50/70 responses, minimal disease activity (MDA) and very low disease activity (VLDA). Continuous composite measures examined included Disease Activity Score (28 joints) using CRP (DAS28-CRP), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Disease Activity for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS). Results: At week 24, etanercept-treated groups were significantly more effective than MTX monotherapy to achieve ACR 20 (primary end point) and MDA (key secondary end point). When examining score changes from baseline at week 24 across the five continuous composite measures, PASDAS demonstrated relatively greater changes in the etanercept-treated groups compared with MTX monotherapy and had the largest effect size and standardized response. Joint count changes drove overall score changes at week 24 from baseline in all the continuous composite measures except for PASDAS, which was driven by the Physician and Patient Global Assessments. Conclusion: PASDAS was the most sensitive continuous composite measure examined with results that mirrored the protocol-defined primary and key secondary outcomes. Composite measures with multiple domains, such as PASDAS, may better quantify change in PsA disease burden. Trail registration: https://ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02376790

The comparative performance of three screening questionnaires for psoriatic arthritis in a primary care surveillance study

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

Outcomes of the 2019 GRAPPA workshop on continuous composite indices for the assessment of psoriatic arthritis and membership-recommended next steps

OBJECTIVE: Improving the assessment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a key purpose of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and PsA (GRAPPA). Herein, we report the proceedings of the GRAPPA composites workshop at the 2019 GRAPPA annual meeting and the membership\u27s recommended next steps. METHODS: A review of continuous composite measures was conducted in an introductory workshop, followed by 10 breakout group sessions and a final plenary session for feedback and voting. RESULTS: Participants included 154 members: 87 rheumatologists, 18 dermatologists, 2 rheumatologist/dermatologists, 12 patient research partners, 14 academics, 1 methodologist, and 20 industry members. Of voting members, 88.8% agreed a need exists for a continuous composite measure for routine practice, but only 62% were currently using a composite measure. Of these, 27% were using the 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS), which is not a PsA-specific measure; 20% were using a PsA-specific measure such as PsA DAS (PASDAS), Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI), or Disease Activity Index for PsA (DAPSA). Members agreed that the existing measures were not feasible in their current forms (CPDAI 83%, PASDAS 82%, and DAPSA 47%) and that modification should be tested. The majority (76%) agreed that disease effect should be measured separately from disease activity. CONCLUSION: The GRAPPA membership supports the need for a continuous composite measure of disease activity for use in routine clinical care, the separate measurement of disease effect and activity, and the testing of modifications to candidate instruments rather than the development of new measures

Treating spondyloarthritis, including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, to target: recommendations of an international task force

Background: Therapeutic targets have been defined for diseases like diabetes, hypertension or rheumatoid arthritis and adhering to them has improved outcomes. Such targets are just emerging for spondyloarthritis (SpA). Objective: To define the treatment target for SpA including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and develop recommendations for achieving the target, including a treat-to-target management strategy. Methods: Based on results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of expert physicians and patients developed recommendations which were broadly discussed and voted upon in a Delphi-like process. Level of evidence, grade and strength of the recommendations were derived by respective means. The commonalities between axial SpA, peripheral SpA and PsA were discussed in detail. Results: Although the literature review did not reveal trials comparing a treat-to-target approach with another or no strategy, it provided indirect evidence regarding an optimised approach to therapy that facilitated the development of recommendations. The group agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations; 9 of these recommendations related commonly to the whole spectrum of SpA and PsA, and only 2 were designed separately for axial SpA, peripheral SpA and PsA. The main treatment target, which should be based on a shared decision with the patient, was defined as remission, with the alternative target of low disease activity. Follow-up examinations at regular intervals that depend on the patient's status should safeguard the evolution of disease activity towards the targeted goal. Additional recommendations relate to extra-articular and extramusculoskeletal aspects and other important factors, such as comorbidity. While the level of evidence was generally quite low, the mean strength of recommendation was 9-10 (10: maximum agreement) for all recommendations. A research agenda was formulated. Conclusions: The task force defined the treatment target as remission or, alternatively, low disease activity, being aware that the evidence base is not strong and needs to be expanded by future research. These recommendations can inform the various stakeholders about expert opinion that aims for reaching optimal outcomes of SpA

Initiating Evaluation of Composite Outcome Measures for Psoriatic Arthritis:2022 Updates From the GRAPPA-OMERACT Working Group

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA)-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) working group-comprising rheumatologists, dermatologists, methodologists, and patient research partners-provided updates at the GRAPPA 2022 annual meeting on its work to evaluate composite outcome measures for PsA. Ten composite outcome measures were considered. Initial steps were to define the population, the purpose of use, and the proposed pros and cons of the 10 candidate composite instruments for PsA. Preliminary Delphi exercises within the working group and GRAPPA stakeholders confirmed high priority for evaluating minimal disease activity (MDA); moderate priority for Disease Activity in PsA (DAPSA), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI), 3 visual analog scale (VAS), and 4VAS; and low priority for Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), Psoriatic Arthritis Responder Criteria (PsARC), and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3). Further appraisal of candidate composite instruments is ongoing.</p

Development of a Disease Activity and Responder Index for Psoriatic Arthritis -- Report of the Psoriatic Arthritis Module at OMERACT 11

This module reflected work within the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) to develop and validate composite disease activity measures in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). At the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 8 Meeting, a core set of domains to be assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCT) and longitudinal observational studies of PsA was agreed upon. At OMERACT 10, 5 proposed composite responder definitions for PsA were reviewed and discussed, including new data from the GRACE (GRAppa Composite Exercise) study. At OMERACT 11, ongoing retrospective analyses of RCT data using the 3 proposed measures (Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score, and Arithmetic Mean of the Desirability Function) were discussed in detail. There was agreement that developing composite outcome measures for use in RCT and longitudinal observational studies in PsA was important. Concerns were expressed regarding development of a single measure that encompassed diverse domains, such as joint counts, quality of life (QOL), and disability measures. It was emphasized that the use of any composite measure should include the ability to differentiate between activity in individual domains, such as enthesitis or psoriasis, such that the effect of each could be assessed independently. It was also agreed that patients would be systematically involved in further development and refinement of composite measures. Future plans include qualitative work with patients to explore their experience of disease activity and statistical modeling to explore how each of the proposed measures will perform in different disease subgroups.</jats:p