Use of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis With and Without Axial Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) is a responsive instrument in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and whether it differentiates between axial and peripheral disease activity in PsA. METHODS: Individuals with PsA initiating therapy in a longitudinal cohort study based in the United States were included. Axial PsA (axPsA), most often also associated with peripheral disease, was defined as fulfillment of the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society axial spondyloarthritis classification criteria or presence of axial disease imaging features. Baseline BASDAI, individual BASDAI items, patient global assessment, patient pain, and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3, and score changes following therapy initiation were descriptively reported. Standardized response means (SRMs) were calculated as the mean change divided by the SD of the change. RESULTS: The mean (SD) baseline BASDAI score at the time of therapy initiation was 5.0 (2.2) among those with axPsA (n = 40) and 4.8 (2.0) among those with peripheral-only disease (n = 79). There was no significant difference in patient-reported outcome scores between the groups. The mean change for BASDAI was similar among axial vs peripheral disease (-0.75 vs -0.83). SRMs were similar across axial vs peripheral disease for BASDAI (-0.37 vs -0.44) and the individual BASDAI items. CONCLUSION: BASDAI has reasonable responsiveness in PsA but does not differentiate between axPsA and peripheral PsA. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03378336).

Management of Concomitant Inflammatory Bowel Disease or Uveitis in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: An Updated Review Informing the 2021 GRAPPA Treatment Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: Several advanced therapies have been licensed across the related conditions of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), Crohn disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC), and noninfectious uveitis. We sought to summarize results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy and safety of advanced therapies for these related conditions in patients with PsA. METHODS: We updated the previous systematic search conducted in 2013 with literature reviews of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from February 2013 to August 2020) on this subject; only those new studies are presented here. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: The number of RCTs meeting eligibility criteria were 12 for CD, 15 for UC, and 5 for uveitis. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) class appears to be efficacious and safe across CD, UC, and uveitis, with the exception of etanercept. Interleukin 12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i) are efficacious for CD and UC. Phase II and III RCTs of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) and IL-23i in CD and UC are promising in terms of efficacy and safety. IL-17i must be used with great caution in patients with PsA at high risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). RCTs in uveitis have mainly studied adalimumab. CONCLUSION: We have identified 32 recent RCTs in IBD and uveitis and updated recommendations for managing patients with PsA and these related conditions. A multispecialty approach is essential to effectively, safely, and holistically manage such patients. Advanced therapies are not equally efficacious across these related conditions, with dosing regimens and safety varying.

A comparison of physical function instruments in psoriatic arthritis: HAQ-DI vs MDHAQ vs PROMIS10 global physical health.

OBJECTIVES: Physical function is a core outcome in PsA. We examined the construct validity and responsiveness of three commonly used instruments to assess physical function in PsA: HAQ disability index (HAQ-DI), MultiDimensional HAQ (MDHAQ) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Global-10. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2019, patients with PsA were enrolled in the Psoriatic Arthritis Research Consortium longitudinal cohort study in the USA. Correlations were calculated at baseline and among change scores using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Standardized response means were calculated. Agreement with the 20% improvement cut-off was used to determine the potential effect of using MDHAQ or the PROMIS Global-10 physical health (GPH) subscore in place of HAQ-DI when assessing the ACR20. RESULTS: A total of 274 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age of patients was 49 years and 51% were male. At baseline, the mean HAQ-DI was 0.6 (s.d. 0.6; range 0-3), the mean MDHAQ was 1.8 (s.d. 1.6; range 0-10) and the mean GPH T-score was 43.4 (s.d. 9.3; range 0-100). All three instruments were strongly correlated at baseline (rho 0.75-0.85). Change scores were moderately correlated (rho 0.42-0.71). Among therapy initiators, the mean change between two visits in HAQ-DI, MDHAQ and GPH was -0.1 (s.d. 0.4), -0.2 (s.d. 1.2) and 2.5 (s.d. 6.1), respectively. The standardized response means were 0.18, 0.16 and 0.41, respectively. CONCLUSION: The three instruments tested are not directly interchangeable but have overall similar levels of responsiveness.

Psoriasis and Cardiovascular Disease: Novel Mechanisms and Evolving Therapeutics.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that is associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared to those without psoriasis. This review will cover emerging mechanisms of cardiovascular risk, key pathways targeted with biologic therapies, and the current evidence on therapies to modulate this risk in patients with psoriasis. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent scientific work has highlighted mechanisms that contribute to this enhanced risk, including the role of vascular endothelial dysfunction, platelet activation, dyslipidemia, and increased cardiometabolic comorbidities. Newer biologic and targeted synthetic therapies have transformed psoriasis treatment with high rates of clinical remission and durable skin disease control now possible. Epidemiological evidence suggests that many of these therapies may lower cardiovascular risk in psoriasis, although prospective interventional data is lacking (or mixed). Recently, caution has also been raised that some treatments may negatively affect cardiovascular risk. Overall, the current data suggests a positive or neutral ability to reduce cardiovascular risk for TNF, IL-17A, and IL-12/23p40 inhibitors, but current evidence remains conflicting for anti-IL-23/p19 and JAK inhibitors. More studies that include prospective cohorts, larger number of patients, treatment duration, and validated surrogate outcomes are needed to better evaluate the role of biologic therapies on cardiovascular risk in psoriasis.

Effects of Intravenous Golimumab on Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: 24-Week Results of the GO-VIBRANT Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the effects of intravenous golimumab 2 mg/kg on multiple domains of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: In this phase III, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, adults with active PsA were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous (IV) infusions of placebo (n = 239) or golimumab 2 mg/kg (n = 241) at weeks 0, 4, 12, and 20. Physical function was assessed using the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). HRQoL was assessed using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey Physical and Mental Component Summary (SF-36 PCS/MCS) scores, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue, EQ VAS, and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). RESULTS: Patients in the golimumab group had greater mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI compared with placebo at weeks 8 (-0.52 vs -0.10), 14 (-0.60 vs -0.12), and 24 (-0.63 vs -0.14). Mean improvements from baseline in SF-36 PCS (8.0 vs 1.7), SF-36 MCS (5.0 vs 1.2), EQ VAS (17.2 vs 3.7), FACIT-Fatigue (7.9 vs 2.0), and DLQI (-7.2 vs -1.7) were also greater in the golimumab group versus placebo at week 8 and were maintained or increased through week 24. Greater proportions of golimumab-treated patients had improvements greater than or equal to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS/MCS, EQ VAS, FACIT-Fatigue, and DLQI scores at weeks 14 and 24. CONCLUSION: Improvements in HRQoL were greater in the IV golimumab group compared with placebo and were evident at week 8 and sustained through week 24.

Family history of psoriasis, psychological stressors, and tobacco use are associated with the development of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor-induced psoriasis: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor-induced psoriasis (TNFI psoriasis) is a paradoxical reaction characterized by development of a psoriasiform rash that mimics psoriasis vulgaris. Temporal onset variability and low incidence rates suggest that underlying risk factors or outside triggers have a role in TNFI psoriasis initiation. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify underlying risk factors and outside triggers associated with TNFI psoriasis onset. METHODS: This case-control study included 97 patients at a tertiary care center between 2003 and 2013 who developed TNFI psoriasis. Ninety-seven control patients were matched to age, sex, disease, TNF-α inhibitor, and length of time on treatment before TNFI psoriasis onset. Patient medical records were reviewed ≥6 months immediately preceding TNFI psoriasis onset (similar equivalent time point for matched controls) for information about potential risk factors and outside factors categorized as: (1) serologic abnormalities, (2) acute events, and (3) social factors. RESULTS: Compared with those of matched controls, odds ratios (ORs) were significantly higher in the TNFI psoriasis group for psoriasis family history (OR, 16.0) and acute psychological stressors (OR, 3.14) and marginally associated with tobacco use (OR, 1.76). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that psoriasis family history, psychological stressors, and tobacco use might be risk factors for developing TNFI psoriasis. Performing detailed patient histories when considering TNFI therapy may be useful in identifying patients at risk for TNFI-psoriasis.

TNF-α inhibitor-induced psoriasis: A decade of experience at the Cleveland Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitor (TNFI)-induced psoriasis remains poorly understood despite having been described 15 years ago. As TNFIs often provide life-changing patient benefits, understanding effective treatments for TNFI-induced psoriasis is important. OBJECTIVE: We characterized a cohort of patients with TNFI-induced psoriasis whose psoriasis was specifically diagnosed and managed or comanaged by dermatologists at a single tertiary care institution over a 10-year period. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients in whom TNFI-induced psoriasis was diagnosed between 2003 and 2013. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients with TNFI-induced psoriasis were identified. The mean age of onset was 40 years, and there was a female predominance (73.5%). Crohn's disease (in 48% of cases) and rheumatoid arthritis (in 24.5% of cases) were the most common primary conditions. Infliximab (in 52% of cases) was the most common inciting agent. The most common TNFI-induced psoriasis subtypes were plaque-type psoriasis (49.5%), scalp psoriasis (47.5%), and palmoplantar pustulosis (41%). Topical medications alone improved or resolved TNFI-induced psoriasis in 63.5% of patients, and cyclosporine and methotrexate (>10 mg weekly) were often effective if topicals failed. Discontinuation of the inciting TNFI with or without other interventions improved or resolved TNFI-induced psoriasis in 67% of refractory cases, whereas switching TNFIs resulted in persistence or recurrence in 64%. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective nature of the study and the fact that some patients may have developed typical psoriasis unresponsive to TNFIs. CONCLUSION: Our study cohort represents the largest single-institution cohort of patients with TNFI-induced psoriasis diagnosed and managed or comanaged by dermatologists to date. On the basis of our findings, we propose a treatment algorithm for TNFI-induced psoriasis.

Cardiovascular Safety of Celecoxib, Naproxen, or Ibuprofen for Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular safety of celecoxib, as compared with nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), remains uncertain. METHODS: Patients who required NSAIDs for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib, ibuprofen, or naproxen. The goal of the trial was to assess the noninferiority of celecoxib with regard to the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Noninferiority required a hazard ratio of 1.12 or lower, as well as an upper 97.5% confidence limit of 1.33 or lower in the intention-to-treat population and of 1.40 or lower in the on-treatment population. Gastrointestinal and renal outcomes were also adjudicated. RESULTS: A total of 24,081 patients were randomly assigned to the celecoxib group (mean [±SD] daily dose, 209±37 mg), the naproxen group (852±103 mg), or the ibuprofen group (2045±246 mg) for a mean treatment duration of 20.3±16.0 months and a mean follow-up period of 34.1±13.4 months. During the trial, 68.8% of the patients stopped taking the study drug, and 27.4% of the patients discontinued follow-up. In the intention-to-treat analyses, a primary outcome event occurred in 188 patients in the celecoxib group (2.3%), 201 patients in the naproxen group (2.5%), and 218 patients in the ibuprofen group (2.7%) (hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. naproxen, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.13; hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons). In the on-treatment analysis, a primary outcome event occurred in 134 patients in the celecoxib group (1.7%), 144 patients in the naproxen group (1.8%), and 155 patients in the ibuprofen group (1.9%) (hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. naproxen, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.15; hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.02; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons). The risk of gastrointestinal events was significantly lower with celecoxib than with naproxen (P=0.01) or ibuprofen (P=0.002); the risk of renal events was significantly lower with celecoxib than with ibuprofen (P=0.004) but was not significantly lower with celecoxib than with naproxen (P=0.19). CONCLUSIONS: At moderate doses, celecoxib was found to be noninferior to ibuprofen or naproxen with regard to cardiovascular safety. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00346216 .).

Comparing patient-perceived and physician-perceived remission and low disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: an analysis of 410 patients from 14 countries.

BACKGROUND: The objective was to compare different definitions of remission and low disease activity (LDA) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), based on both patients' and physicians' perspectives. METHODS: In ReFlap (Remission/Flare in PsA; NCT03119805), adults with physician-confirmed PsA and >2 years of disease duration in 14 countries were included. Remission was defined as very low disease activity (VLDA), Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) ≤4, and physician-perceived and patient-perceived remission (specific question yes/no), and LDA as minimal disease activity (MDA), DAPSA <14, and physician-perceived and patient-perceived LDA. Frequencies of these definitions, their agreement (prevalence-adjusted kappa), and sensitivity and specificity versus patient-defined status were assessed cross-sectionally. RESULTS: Of 410 patients, the mean age (SD) was 53.9 (12.5) years, 50.7% were male, disease duration was 11.2 (8.2) years, 56.8% were on biologics, and remission/LDA was frequently attained: respectively, for remission from 12.4% (VLDA) to 36.1% (physician-perceived remission), and for LDA from 25.4% (MDA) to 43.9% (patient-perceived LDA). Thus, patient-perceived remission/LDA was frequent (65.4%). Agreement between patient-perceived remission/LDA and composite scores was moderate to good (kappa range, 0.12-0.65). When patient-perceived remission or LDA status is used as reference, DAPSA-defined remission/LDA and VLDA/MDA had a sensitivity of 73.1% and 51.5%, respectively, and a specificity of 76.8% and 88.0%, respectively. Physician-perceived remission/LDA using a single question was frequent (67.6%) but performed poorly against other definitions. CONCLUSION: In this unselected population, remission/LDA was frequently attained. VLDA/MDA was a more stringent definition than DAPSA-based remission/LDA. DAPSA-based remission/LDA performed better than VLDA/MDA to detect patient-defined remission or remission/LDA. Further studies of long-term outcomes are needed.

Tramadol for osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Tramadol is often prescribed to treat pain and is associated physical disability in osteoarthritis (OA). Due to the pharmacologic mechanism of tramadol, it may lead to fewer associated adverse effects (i.e. gastrointestinal bleeding or renal problems) compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of oral tramadol or tramadol combined with acetaminophen or NSAIDs in people with osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase databases, as well as the US National Institutes of Health and World Health Organization trial registries up to February 2018. We searched the LILACS database up to August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of tramadol, or tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (paracetamol) or NSAIDs versus placebo or any comparator in people with osteoarthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs (11 more than the previous review) of which 21 RCTs were included in meta-analyses for 3871 participants randomized to tramadol alone or tramadol in combination with another analgesic and 2625 participants randomized to placebo or active control. Seventeen studies evaluated tramadol alone and five evaluated tramadol plus acetaminophen. Thirteen studies used placebo controls and eleven studies used active controls (two trials had both placebo and active arms). The dose of tramadol ranged from 37.5 mg to 400 mg daily; all doses were pooled. Most trials were multicenter with a mean duration of two months. Participants were predominantly women with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with a mean age of 63 years and moderate to severe pain. There was a high risk of selection bias as only four trials reported both adequate sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was a low risk for performance bias as most studies blinded participants. There was a high risk of attrition bias as 10/22 trials showed incomplete outcome data. Most of the trials were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen had no important benefit on pain reduction compared to placebo control (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3% to 5%; 8 studies, 3972 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Fifteen out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in pain) compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Twelve out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 7/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen led to no important benefit in physical function compared to placebo (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 5 studies, 2550 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 7%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Twenty-one out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in physical function) compared to 16/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Fifteen out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that, compared to placebo, there was a greater risk of developing adverse events with tramadol alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.46; 4 studies, 2039 participants) and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.76; 1 study, 308 participants). This corresponded to a 17% increase (95% CI 12% to 23%) with tramadol alone and 22% increase (95% CI 8% to 41%) with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen.The three most frequent adverse events were nausea, dizziness and tiredness. Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (RR 2.64, 95% CI 2.17 to 3.20; 9 studies, 4533 participants), which corresponded to a 12% increase (95% CI 9% to 16%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.16; 2 studies, 614 participants), which corresponded to a 8% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 19%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision) indicated that there was a greater risk of developing serious adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (110/2459 participants with tramadol compared to 22/1153 participants with placebo; RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.84; 7 studies, 3612 participants), which corresponded to a 1% increase (95% CI 0% to 4%). There were no serious adverse events reported in one small study (15 participants) of tramadol with acetaminophen compared to placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence indicates that compared to placebo, tramadol alone or in combination with acetaminophen probably has no important benefit on mean pain or function in people with osteoarthritis, although slightly more people in the tramadol group report an important improvement (defined as 20% or more). Moderate quality evidence shows that adverse events probably cause substantially more participants to stop taking tramadol. The increase in serious adverse events with tramadol is less certain, due to the small number of events.

The potential benefits of aspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention in rheumatoid arthritis: a secondary analysis of the PRECISION Trial.

Objective: Guidelines exist for the use of low-dose aspirin in the general population for primary cardiovascular (CV) prevention, but the risk-benefit considerations may differ in RA. While RA confers an increased CV risk, such patients more likely use NSAIDs and corticosteroids. Methods: We conducted a cohort study to assess potential risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin. We estimated incidence rates and hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression among subjects with RA but no known CV disease in the Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Vs Ibuprofen Or Naproxen trial. The primary exposure of interest was low-dose aspirin, and all enrolled patients were provided open-label esomeprazole. The primary composite outcome was major NSAID toxicity, including major adverse CV event (MACE), clinically significant gastrointestinal events, renal events and all-cause mortality. Results: We found 1852 subjects with RA in Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Vs Ibuprofen Or Naproxen without known CV disease; 540 reported using low-dose aspirin for CV prevention and 1312 did not. Any major NSAID toxicity was observed in 79 (6.0%) non-aspirin users and 37 (6.9%) aspirin users (P = 0.50). Aspirin users experienced all components of the primary outcome at a similar rate to non-users. In fully adjusted models, the risk for major NSAID toxicity was similar between aspirin exposure groups (HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.69). The risk for MACE was also similar between exposure groups in age- and gender-adjusted models (HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.72, 2.10). Conclusion: RA patients using low-dose aspirin with chronic NSAIDs and esomeprazole had a similar risk of major NSAID toxicity and MACE as patients who did not.

Underdiagnosed and undertreated psoriasis: Nuances of treating psoriasis affecting the scalp, face, intertriginous areas, genitals, hands, feet, and nails.

Psoriasis of the scalp, face, intertriginous areas, genitals, hands, feet, and nails is often underdiagnosed, and disease management can be challenging. Despite the small surface area commonly affected by psoriasis in these locations, patients have disproportionate levels of physical impairment and emotional distress. Limitations in current disease severity indices do not fully capture the impact of disease on a patient's quality of life, and, combined with limitations in current therapies, many patients do not receive proper or adequate care. In this review, we discuss the clinical manifestations of psoriasis in these less commonly diagnosed areas and its impact on patient quality of life. We also examine clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of therapies on psoriasis in these regions. This article highlights the need to individualize treatment strategies for psoriasis based on the area of the body that is affected and the emerging role of biologic therapy in this regard.

Differential blood pressure effects of ibuprofen, naproxen, and celecoxib in patients with arthritis: the PRECISION-ABPM (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement) Trial.

AIMS: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), both non-selective and selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, are among the most widely prescribed drugs worldwide, but associate with increased blood pressure (BP) and adverse cardiovascular (CV) events. PRECISION-ABPM, a substudy of PRECISION was conducted at 60 sites, to determine BP effects of the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib vs. the non-selective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this double-blind, randomized, multicentre non-inferiority CV-safety trial, 444 patients (mean age 62 ± 10 years, 54% female) with osteoarthritis (92%) or rheumatoid arthritis (8%) and evidence of or at increased risk for coronary artery disease received celecoxib (100-200 mg bid), ibuprofen (600-800 mg tid), or naproxen (375-500 mg bid) with matching placebos in a 1: 1: 1 allocation, to assess the effect on 24-h ambulatory BP after 4 months. The change in mean 24-h systolic BP (SBP) in celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen-treated patients was -0.3 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.25, 1.74], 3.7 (95% CI, 1.72, 5.58) and 1.6 mmHg (95% CI, -0.40, 3.57), respectively. These changes resulted in a difference of - 3.9 mmHg (P = 0.0009) between celecoxib and ibuprofen, of - 1.8 mmHg (P = 0.12) between celecoxib and naproxen, and of - 2.1 mmHg (P = 0.08) between naproxen and ibuprofen. The percentage of patients with normal baseline BP who developed hypertension (mean 24-h SBP ≥ 130 and/or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg) was 23.2% for ibuprofen, 19.0% for naproxen, and 10.3% for celecoxib (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.004 and odds ratio 0.49, P = 0.03 vs. ibuprofen and naproxen, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In PRECISION-ABPM, allocation to the non-selective NSAID ibuprofen, compared with the COX-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib was associated with a significant increase of SBP, and a higher incidence of new-onset hypertension. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number NCT00346216.

Benefit-risk trade-offs for treatment decisions in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: focus on the patient perspective.

Given the increasing number of available treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with varying efficacy and safety profiles, it is critical to understand the level of trade-offs that patients are willing to make between benefits and risks. Adult patients with moderate to severe RA were invited to participate in a discrete choice experiment that solicited their preferences for hypothetical RA treatments. Each participant was presented with 14 choice cards asking about their preference between two hypothetical RA treatments with varying levels of efficacy, adverse events, and process-related attributes. A multivariable logistic regression model assessed the association between the attributes and the patient's decision and risk-increases were calculated. 510 eligible patients with moderate to severe RA completed the study. The average age of the participants was 56.4 years, 64.7% were female, and 45.1% received biologic agents. To achieve a 50% improvement in physical function, patients were willing to accept risk-increases of 91.1, 4.7, and 18.4% for abnormal laboratory results, cancer, and serious infection, respectively. Similarly, to achieve a 50% reduction in RA-related pain, patients were willing to accept risk-increases of 70.6, 3.7, and 14.2% for each AE. Moreover, patients were willing to trade risk-increases of 42.0, 2.2, and 8.5% for each AE to obtain a 50% reduction in the number of swollen joints. Patients with moderate to severe RA are willing to accept increased treatment risks to achieve improved physical function and disease control. These attributes are helpful to clinicians to make informed treatment choices.

Recognizing and managing comorbidities in psoriatic arthritis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Many patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have additional medical problems that can have an impact on morbidity and mortality. The goal of this review is to summarize the available evidence to date on the association of medical comorbidities with PsA and the implications these comorbidities have on prognosis, therapy selection and treatment response. RECENT FINDINGS: Cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, obesity, diabetes, fatty liver disease Crohn's disease, ophthalmic disease, depression and anxiety are common comorbidities associated with PsA. Additional comorbidities may include an elevated risk for malignancy and osteoporosis; however, fewer studies have addressed these issues and the data available are sometimes conflicting. SUMMARY: All clinicians caring for patients with PsA should be aware of the relevant comorbidities affecting patients with PsA and should have an understanding of how these comorbidities affect management.

Irreversible heavy chain transfer to hyaluronan oligosaccharides by tumor necrosis factor-stimulated gene-6.

The covalent transfer of heavy chains (HCs) from inter-α-inhibitor (IαI) to hyaluronan (HA) via the protein product of tumor necrosis factor-stimulated gene-6 (TSG-6) forms the HC-HA complex, a pathological form of HA that promotes the adhesion of leukocytes to HA matrices. The transfer of HCs to high molecular weight (HMW) HA is a reversible event whereby TSG-6 can shuffle HCs from one HA molecule to another. Therefore, HMW HA can serve as both an HC acceptor and an HC donor. In the present study, we show that transfer of HCs to low molecular weight HA oligosaccharides is an irreversible event where subsequent shuffling does not occur, i.e. HA oligosaccharides from 8 to 21 monosaccharide units in length can serve as HC acceptors, but are unable to function as HC donors. We show that the HC-HA complex is present in the synovial fluid of mice subjected to systemic and monoarticular mouse models of rheumatoid arthritis. Furthermore, we demonstrate that HA oligosaccharides can be used, with TSG-6, to irreversibly shuffle HCs from pathological, HMW HC-HA to HA oligosaccharides, thereby restoring HC-HA matrices from the inflamed joint to their normal state, unmodified with HCs. This process was also effective for HC-HA in the synovial fluid of human rheumatoid arthritis patients (in vitro).

What Clinical Factors Affect Length of Transition to Psoriatic Arthritis in Patients With Psoriasis?

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify clinical and demographic features associated with the interval between psoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: We identified patients with PsO and PsA diagnoses from our tertiary care psoriatic disease biorepository: a longitudinal, real-world database including clinical information and patient-reported outcomes. We used a multivariable a zero-inflated negative binomial model to evaluate several clinical and demographic features that may be associated with the time between PsO and PsA onset. RESULTS: A total of 384 patients were included, of whom 52.2% were female. The mean age of PsO onset was 31.5 years. Advanced age at PsO onset was associated with a shorter interval between PsO and PsA. Based on our model, patients with PsO onset at age 42.6 years (upper end of the interquartile range [IQR]) had a 62% shorter expected interval compared with patients with PsO onset at age 18.9 years (lower end of IQR) (P < 0.001) and were more likely to have concurrent (onset within 6 months) diagnoses (odds ratio 4.56; 95% confidence interval 2.9-7.17). Patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 34 compared with a BMI of 26 had a 10% shorter interval between PsO and PsA, which trended toward statistical significance (P = 0.053). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that patients with a diagnosis of PsO at an older age have a shorter interval between PsO and PsA diagnoses and are more likely to have concurrent diagnoses compared with patients with an onset of PsO at a younger age. These results suggest that patients with a later onset of PsO may benefit from earlier PsA screening.

Screening Tools for Spondyloarthritis in Patients With Psoriasis, Uveitis, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Extramusculoskeletal manifestations of spondyloarthritis (SpA) may precede the development of articular features. Patients seen in ophthalmology, dermatology, and gastroenterology clinics with uveitis, psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may have undiagnosed SpA. We set out to identify and evaluate screening tools for SpA in patients with psoriasis, uveitis, and IBD and determine factors that influence the performance of these instruments. METHODS: This scoping review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to January 2022. RESULTS: We identified 13 screening tools for psoriatic arthritis, 2 SpA screening tools for uveitis, and 3 SpA screening tools for IBD. All screening tools were patient-oriented questionnaires except for the Dublin Uveitis Evaluation Tool, a physician-applied algorithm. The questionnaires varied in length, scoring method, cutoff score, and spectrum of included SpA features. Average completion time was less than five minutes. Across the three patient populations, the sensitivities and specificities of these screening tools were comparable in the primary validation cohorts. Sensitivities and specificities were generally lower in secondary validation studies, with marked variability among cohorts. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the heterogeneity and limitations of existing SpA screening tools. Although these tools show promise for use within a specific target population, none are generalizable to all patients with extramusculoskeletal manifestations at risk of SpA. Future studies should explore the utility of a generic patient-oriented SpA screening tool that can be applied to patients with psoriasis, uveitis, or IBD; is easy to use and comprehend; and captures all clinical domains of SpA.

Mechanistic insights into bone remodelling dysregulation by human viral pathogens.

Bone-related diseases (osteopathologies) associated with human virus infections have increased around the globe. Recent findings have highlighted the intricate interplay between viral infection, the host immune system and the bone remodelling process. Viral infections can disrupt bone homeostasis, contributing to conditions such as arthritis and soft tissue calcifications. Osteopathologies can occur after arbovirus infections such as chikungunya virus, dengue virus and Zika virus, as well as respiratory viruses, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and enteroviruses such as Coxsackievirus B. Here we explore how human viruses dysregulate bone homeostasis, detailing viral factors, molecular mechanisms, host immune response changes and bone remodelling that ultimately result in osteopathologies. We highlight model systems and technologies to advance mechanistic understanding of viral-mediated bone alterations. Finally, we propose potential prophylactic and therapeutic strategies, introduce 'osteovirology' as a research field highlighting the underestimated roles of viruses in bone-related diseases, and discuss research avenues for further investigation.