Effectiveness of sequential lines of biologic and targeted small-molecule drugs in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review.

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.

From polarity to plurality: Perceptions of COVID-19 and policy measures in England and Scotland.

AIM: The aim of this study was to uncover perspectives on the COVID-19 pandemic and the responses implemented by the UK and Scottish Governments to help control the spread of infection. Such understanding could help to inform future responses to pandemics at individual, community and national levels. METHOD: Q methodology was used to elicit perspectives from people in England and Scotland with different experiences of the pandemic including public health officials, key workers, those on furlough, those who were unvaccinated or vaccinated to different levels, those who were 'shielding' because they were at higher risk and people with different scientific expertise. Participants rank-ordered phrases about different aspects of COVID-19 according to their viewpoint. Factor analysis was then conducted in conjunction with interview material from the same respondents. RESULTS: A four-factor solution was statistically supported and was interpretable alongside the qualitative accounts of participants loading on these factors. These four perspectives are titled Dangerous and Unaccountable Leadership, Fear and Anger at Policy and Public responses, Governing Through a Crisis and Injustices Exposed. CONCLUSION: The four perspectives demonstrate plurality and nuance in views on COVID-19 and the associated policies and restrictions, going beyond a binary narrative that has been apparent in popular and social media. The four perspectives include some areas of common ground, as well as disagreement. We argue that understanding the detail of different perspectives might be used to build cohesion around policy initiatives in future. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The development of the statement set, which is rank-ordered by participants in a Q study, and factor interpretations were informed by views of the general public. The statement set was initially developed using existing publicly available material based on members of the general public experiencing the pandemic first hand. It was then piloted with members of the public experiencing different challenges as a result of COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdown and updated based on feedback. Finally, interpretations of the identified factors were presented publicly and edited according to their feedback.

Policy actors' perceptions of public participation to tackle health inequalities in Scotland: a paradox?

BACKGROUND: Health inequalities are persistent and widening with transformative policy change needed. Radically shifting policy to tackle upstream causes of inequalities is likely to require public participation to provide a mandate, evidence and to address questions of co-design, implementation and acceptability. The aim of this paper is to explore perceptions among policy actors on why and how the public should be involved in policymaking for health inequalities. METHODS: In 2019-2020, we conducted exploratory, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 21 Scottish policy actors from a range of public sector bodies and agencies and third sector organisations that work in, or across, health and non-health sectors. Data were analysed thematically and used to examine implications for the development of participatory policymaking. RESULTS: Policy actors viewed public participation in policymaking as intrinsically valuable for democratic reasons, but the main, and more challenging, concern was with how it could affect positive policy change. Participation was seen as instrumental in two overlapping ways: as evidence to improve policies to tackle health inequalities and to achieve public acceptance for implementing more transformative policies. However, our analysis suggests a paradox: whilst policy actors place importance on the instrumental value of public participation, they simultaneously believe the public hold views about health inequalities that would prevent transformative change. Finally, despite broad agreement on the need to improve public participation in policy development, policy actors were uncertain about how to make the necessary changes due to conceptual, methodological and practical challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Policy actors believe in the importance of public participation in policy to address health inequalities for intrinsic and instrumental reasons. Yet, there is an evident tension between seeing public participation as a route to upstream policies and a belief that public views might be misinformed, individualistic, short-term or self-interested and doubts about how to make public participation meaningful. We lack good insight into what the public think about policy solutions to health inequalities. We propose that research needs to shift from describing the problem to focusing more on potential solutions and outline a potential way forward to undertake effective public participation to tackle health inequalities.

Treatment of psoriatic arthritis with biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs: British Society for Rheumatology guideline scope.

The aim of this guideline is to provide an update on evidence-based recommendations for treatment of adult patients with PsA. The previous BSR guidelines for PsA were published in 2012 and since that time, there have been many new advanced therapies licensed for PsA. This update will provide practical guidance for clinicians on the optimal selection of advanced therapies taking into account different domains of PsA (arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, axial disease and psoriasis) and key associated comorbidities. It will also update guidance on treatment strategy including the use of a treat-to-target approach. The guideline will be developed using the methods and processes outlined in Creating Clinical Guidelines: Our Protocol. (1) This development process to produce guidance, advice and recommendations for practice has National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) accreditation.

Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices.

CONTEXT: 'What does 'The Public' think?' is a question often posed by researchers and policy makers, and public values are regularly invoked to justify policy decisions. Over time there has been a participatory turn in the social and health sciences, including health technology assessment and priority setting in health, towards citizen participation such that public policies reflect public values. It is one thing to agree that public values are important, however, and another to agree on how public values should be elicited, deliberated upon and integrated into decision-making. Surveys of public values rarely deliver unanimity, and preference heterogeneity, or plurality, is to be expected. METHODS: This paper examines the role of public values in health policy and how to elicit, analyse, and present values, in the face of plurality. We delineate the strengths and weaknesses of aggregative and deliberative methods before setting out a new empirical framework, drawing on Sunstein's Incompletely Theorised Agreements, based on three levels: principles, policies and patients. The framework is illustrated using a recognised policy dilemma - the provision of high cost, limited-effect medicines intended to extend life for people with terminal illnesses. FINDINGS: Application of the multi-level framework to public values permits transparent consideration of plurality, including analysis of coherence and consensus, in a way that offers routes to policy recommendations that are based on public values and justified in those terms. CONCLUSIONS: Using the new framework and eliciting quantitative and qualitative data across levels of abstraction has the potential to inform policy recommendations grounded in public values, where values are plural. This is not to suggest that one solution will magically emerge, but rather that choices between policies can be explicitly justified in relation to the properties of public values, and a much clearer understanding of (in)consistencies and areas of consensus.

Microcredit as a public health initiative? Exploring mechanisms and pathways to health and wellbeing.

The widening health gap between the best and worst-off in the UK requires innovative solutions that act upon the social, economic and environmental causes of ill-health. Initiatives such as microcredit have been conceptualised as having the potential to act on the social determinants of health. However, pathways that lead to this impact have yet to be empirically explored. People living on low incomes, who are financially-excluded, require access to credit to cope with everyday financial needs. While research shows the connections between debt and health, this link is often focused on over-indebtedness and negative health outcomes. In this paper, we investigate the impact of responsibly-delivered credit on the health and wellbeing of borrowers. In 2016-17, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with fourteen borrowers from two microcredit providers offering personal and business microloans, operating in Glasgow, United Kingdom. Findings are presented, using social determinants of health as an analytic lens, and illustrated in a conceptual model explaining the loan mechanisms and pathways connecting microcredit to health and wellbeing. Microcredit, and the mechanisms through which it is delivered, were perceived by participants as positively impacting on their health and wellbeing. Access to flexible, responsibly-delivered, microloans enabled participants to plan and feel secure when faced with (un)expected financial events, reducing the associated stress, sustaining social relationships and empowering borrowers to take greater control over their lives. For some, receiving microcredit was stressful, as it is still a debt that needs to be repaid. Such stress can also be exacerbated by particular aspects of the lending model; for example, group lending. Our results contribute to growing evidence on the impact of financial inclusion approaches on health and wellbeing, highlighting the potential role of microcredit as a public health initiative and the need to support 'alternative' economic spaces in the UK to serve the financially-excluded.

Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis: Combined Analysis of European Biologics Databases.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) combination therapy with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) is more effective for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and/or improves TNFi drug survival compared to TNFi monotherapy. METHODS: Five PsA biologics cohorts were investigated between 2000 and 2015: the ATTRA registry (Czech Republic); the Swiss Clinical Quality Management PsA registry; the Hellenic Registry of Biologics Therapies (Greece); the University of Bari PsA biologics database (Italy); and the Bath PsA cohort (UK). Drug persistence was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and equality of survival using log-rank tests. Comparative effectiveness was investigated using logistic regression with propensity scores. Separate analyses were performed on (1) the combined Italian/Swiss cohorts for change in rate of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28); and (2) the combined Italian, Swiss, and Bath cohorts for change in rate of Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). RESULTS: In total, 2294 patients were eligible for the drug survival analysis. In the Swiss (P = 0.002), Greek (P = 0.021), and Bath (P = 0.014) databases, patients starting TNFi in combination with methotrexate had longer drug survival compared to monotherapy, while in Italy the monotherapy group persisted longer (P = 0.030). In eligible patients from the combined Italian/Swiss dataset (n = 1056), there was no significant difference between treatment arms in rate of change of DAS28. Similarly, when also including the Bath cohort (n = 1205), there was no significant difference in rate of change of HAQ. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy of a TNFi with a csDMARD does not appear to affect improvement of disease activity or HAQ versus TNFi monotherapy, but it may improve TNFi drug survival.

Diagnosis and initial management in psoriatic arthritis: a qualitative study with patients.

OBJECTIVES: PsA is an inflammatory condition that can cause pain, fatigue, swelling and joint stiffness. The consequences include impaired physical function, a high psychosocial burden, reduced quality of life and work disability. The presenting symptoms can be non-specific and varied, leading to delays in diagnosis or referral to specialist teams. The aim of this study was to explore patients' experiences of being diagnosed and the initial management of PsA. METHODS: The study used a qualitative design, with data collected in one-to-one, face-to-face semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Fifteen newly diagnosed patients (<24 months) from three hospital sites in the southwest of England participated. Interviews were transcribed, anonymized and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. The following two main themes with sub-themes represent the data: symptom onset to specialist care: 'it was the blind leading the blind' (making sense of symptoms; mis-diagnosis and missed opportunities; and fast and easy access to expertise); and diagnosis as a turning point: 'having somebody say you've got something wrong with you, I was euphoric' (validation and reassurance; weighing up treatment options; taking on self-management; and acknowledging loss and change). CONCLUSION: Participants were already dealing with functional limitations and were highly distressed and anxious by the time they received their diagnosis. Physical and mental outcomes could be improved by the implementation of existing psoriasis management guidelines and strategies for earlier referral from primary care to rheumatology and by the development of guidelines on educational, self-management and psychological support provision soon after diagnosis.

Presentation of SLE in UK primary care using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the presenting symptoms of SLE in primary care using the Clinical Practice Research Database (CPRD) and to calculate the time from symptom presentation to SLE diagnosis. METHODS: Incident cases of SLE were identified from the CPRD between 2000 and 2012. Presenting symptoms were identified from the medical records of cases in the 5 years before diagnosis and grouped using the British Isles Lupus Activity Group (BILAG) symptom domains. The time from the accumulation of one, two and three BILAG domains to SLE diagnosis was investigated, stratified by age at diagnosis (<30, 30-49 and ≥50 years). RESULTS: We identified 1426 incident cases (170 males and 1256 females) of SLE. The most frequently recorded symptoms and signs prior to diagnosis were musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous and neurological. The median time from first musculoskeletal symptom to SLE diagnosis was 26.4 months (IQR 9.3-43.6). There was a significant difference in the time to diagnosis (log rank p<0.01) when stratified by age and disease severity at baseline, with younger patients <30 years and those with severe disease having the shortest times and patients aged ≥50 years and those with mild disease having the longest (6.4 years (IQR 5.8-6.8)). CONCLUSIONS: The time from symptom onset to SLE diagnosis is long, especially in older patients. SLE should be considered in patients presenting with flaring or chronic musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous and neurological symptoms.