Validation of the Spanish Version of the PURE-4 Questionnaire for the Early Detection of Psoriatic Arthritis in Psoriatic Patients. / Validación de la versión española del cuestionario PURE-4 para la detección precoz de la artritis psoriásica en pacientes con psoriasis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Psoriasis often precedes the onset of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), so dermatologists often face the challenge of early identifying signs of PsA in patients with psoriasis. Our aim was to validate the Spanish version of the PURE-4 questionnaire as a screening tool for PsA, evaluate its performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, feasibility, reliability, and build validity. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, observational, multicenter trial of adult patients with psoriasis. Initially, patients were assessed by a dermatologist and completed 2 self-administered versions (in print and online) of the PURE-4 questionnaire. Afterwards, the rheumatologist, blinded to the PURE-4 results, assessed the presence/absence of PsA, being the reference to determine the performance of the PURE-4 questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 268 patients were included (115 [42.9%] women; mean age, 47.1±12.6). The prevalence of PsA according to rheumatologist diagnosis was 12.7% (34 patients). The mean PURE-4 score for patients with psoriasis diagnosed with PsA was 2.3±1.1, and 1.3±1.3 for patients without PsA (P<.001). The cutoff value ≥2 demonstrated the best performance for detecting PsA, with a negative predictive value of 95.1% (95% confidence interval, 90.3-97.6). CONCLUSIONS: The PURE-4 questionnaire demonstrated good performance in detecting PsA, with an optimal cutoff point ≥2. This simple tool could facilitate early referral of patients to the rheumatology unit.

Selection of Quality Indicators for the Certification of Psoriasis Units: The CUDERMA Project Delphi Consensus Study. / Proyecto CUDERMA: Consenso Delphi de los indicadores de calidad para la certificación de las unidades de dermatología de atención en psoriasis.

Defining quality indicators is a key strategy for ensuring the quality and standardization of health care. The CUDERMA project, an initiative of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venerology (AEDV), was undertaken to define quality indicators for the certification of specialized units in dermatology; the first 2 areas selected were psoriasis and dermato-oncology. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus on what should be assessed by the indicators used to certify psoriasis units. The structured process used to do this comprised a literature review to identify potential indicators, the selection of an initial set of indicators to be evaluated by a multidisciplinary group of experts and, finally, a Delphi consensus study. A panel of 39 dermatologists evaluated the selected indicators and classified them as either "essential" or "of excellence". Consensus was finally reached on 67 indicators, which will be standardized and used to develop the certification standard for psoriasis units.

Are the chilblain-like lesions observed during the COVID-19 pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

The expansion of the COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by numerous reports of chilblain-like lesions (CLL) in different countries; however, the pathogenesis of these lesions is still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 (diagnosed using PCR and/or serology) in patients with CLL. We undertook a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus (to 15 March 2021), including studies that reported on the number of patients with CLL with positive PCR and/or serology for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or with a clinical suspicion of COVID-19. Regardless of data heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used to pool prevalence estimates. The meta-analysis included 63 original studies, involving 2919 cases of CLL. A subgroup of these patients underwent diagnostic tests for COVID-19 (PCR: n = 1154, 39.5%; serology: n = 943, 32.3%). The pooled prevalence of COVID-19 in the overall sample and in the subgroup who were tested for COVID-19 was, respectively: (i) positive PCR: 2.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9% to 3.4%] and 5.5% (95% CI, 3.7-7.7%); (ii) positive serology for SARS-CoV-2: 7.2% (95% CI, 4.7-10.2%) and 11.8% (95% CI, 7.9-16.3%); and (iii) positive PCR and/or serology, 15.2% (95% CI, 10.4-20.7%) and 7.5% (95% CI, 5.1-10.3%). Altogether, a small proportion of diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2, both PCR and serologies, show positive results in patients with CLL.

Description of Patients Treated with Biologic Drugs as First-Line Systemic Therapy in the BIOBADADERM Registry Between 2008 and 2016. / Descripción de los pacientes que reciben biológicos como primer tratamiento sistémico en el registro BIOBADADERM durante el periodo 2008-2016.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Biologic drugs are usually prescribed as second-line treatment for psoriasis, that is, after the patient has first been treated with a conventional psoriasis drug. There are, however, cases where, depending on the characteristics of the patient or the judgement of the physician, biologics may be chosen as first-line therapy. No studies to date have analyzed the demographics or clinical characteristics of patients in this setting or the safety profile of the agents used. The main aim of this study was to characterize these aspects of first-line biologic therapy and compare them to those observed for patients receiving biologics as second-line therapy. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We conducted an observational study of 181 patients treated in various centers with a systemic biologic drug as first-line treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis between January 2008 and November 2016. All the patients were registered in the Spanish Registry of Adverse Events Associated with Biologic Drugs in Dermatology. RESULTS: The characteristics of the first- and second-line groups were very similar, although the patients receiving a biologic as first-line treatment for their psoriasis were older. No differences were observed for disease severity (assessed using the PASI) or time to diagnosis. Hypertension, diabetes, and liver disease were all more common in the first-line group. There were no differences between the groups in terms of reasons for drug withdrawal or occurrence of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: No major differences were found between patients with psoriasis receiving biologic drugs as first- or second-line therapy, a finding that provides further evidence of the safety of biologic therapy in patients with psoriasis.

Management of Biologic Therapy in Moderate to Severe Psoriasis in Surgical Patients: Data From the Spanish Biobadaderm Registry. / Manejo de los tratamientos biológicos en pacientes con psoriasis moderada-grave sometidos a intervenciones quirúrgicas en el registro español Biobadaderm.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We now have considerable experience in the use of biologic agents to treat psoriasis, but doubts about management arise in certain clinical settings. Surgery is one of them. Although treatment guidelines advise that biologics be suspended before major surgery, data about actual clinical practices and associated complications are lacking. We aimed to analyze current practice in the clinical management of these cases. METHODS: Retrospective study of cases in the Biobadaderm database. We analyzed the management of biologic therapy in patients with psoriasis who underwent surgical procedures. RESULTS: Forty-eight of the 2113 patients registered in Biobadaderm underwent surgery. The largest percentage of procedures (31%) involved skin lesions. Biologic treatment was interrupted in 42% of the cases. No postsurgical complications were significantly related to treatment interruption. Likewise we detected no associations between treatment interruption and other variables, such as sex, age, or duration or severity of psoriasis. CONCLUSION: Continuity of biologic treatment and the risk of postsurgical complications were not associated in this study, although conclusions are limited by the small sample size.

Spanish adaptation of the European guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of actinic keratosis.

Current trends in our setting indicate that the prevalence of actinic keratosis and similar diseases will increase in coming years and impose a greater burden on health care resources. A long list of clinical features must be taken into account when approaching the treatment of actinic keratosis. Until recently, therapeutic approaches focused solely on ablative procedures and the treatment of individual lesions and did not take into account areas of field cancerization. Now that the therapeutic arsenal has grown, standardized criteria are needed to guide the optimal choice of treatment for each patient. The elaboration of evidence-based consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of actinic keratosis generates knowledge that will help clinicians to deliver the highest level of care possible, standardizing decision-making processes and enhancing awareness among all the health professionals involved in the care pathway.

[Adverse reactions during biological therapy for psoriasis: results of a survey of the Spanish Psoriasis Group]. / Efectos adversos observados durante la terapia biológica en la psoriasis. Resultados de una encuesta al Grupo Español de Psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies have been a major breakthrough in the treatment of psoriasis because they are more selective and have a better short-term and medium-term safety profile. There are reliable data to support both the efficacy and the safety of these drugs. However, it is always useful to report the clinical experience of dermatologists who are experts in the use of biologic agents to treat psoriasis, particularly with regard to their safety. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We present the results of a survey administered to the members of Spanish Psoriasis Group and based on a series of questions referring to the clinical safety of these agents. A total of 988 patients treated with efalizumab, infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab were reported by 15 members of the group. RESULTS: There was a particularly high proportion of reactions (34%) to infliximab infusions. Blood test abnormalities were detected in 13.25% of patients and infections in 12.24%, with one case of pulmonary tuberculosis. Attention is drawn to the adverse effects profile of efalizumab: de novo arthritis in 5.8% and rebound in 20.9% of patients. CONCLUSION: The safety data provided by our study should be taken into account in view of the large number of patients recruited by dermatologists experienced in the use of this type of therapy.