Measuring Choroid Thickness as a Marker of Systemic Inflammation in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is an inflammatory disease, and choroidal thickness (CT) has been proposed and evaluated as a potential marker of systemic inflammation associated with AS and other inflammatory diseases. This study compared CT measurements taken from patients with severe AS disease activity without eye inflammation with those taken from healthy subjects. METHODS: This cross-sectional, multicenter study compared CT in 44 patients with high AS disease activity, and no history of eye inflammation with CT in 44 matched healthy subjects aged between 18 and 65 years. In the AS group, the correlation between CT and C-reactive protein, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) B27 positivity, disease duration, and disease activity was calculated. RESULTS: Mean CT values of patients with AS were significantly higher in the right eye, the left eye, and the thickest choroid eye. The right eye mean CT was 338.3 ± 82.8 µm among patients with AS and 290.5 ± 71.2 µm among healthy subjects (p = 0.005). The left eye mean CT was 339.5 ± 84.7 µm for patients with AS and 298.4 ± 68.9 µm for healthy subjects (P = 0.015). The thickest choroid eye CT was 358.4 ± 82.1 µm among patients with AS and 314.1 ± 65.2 µm among healthy subjects (P = 0.006). We did not find a significant correlation between CT and disease activity, C-reactive protein, human leukocyte antigen B27 positivity, or disease duration. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with active AS but without a history of eye inflammation had a thicker choroid than healthy subjects. This finding suggests that CT is a marker of systemic inflammation in patients with inflammatory disease, regardless of known eye symptoms.

Current status of multidisciplinary care in psoriatic arthritis in Spain: NEXUS 2.0 project. / Estado actual de la atención multidisciplinar para pacientes con artritis psoriásica en España: proyecto NEXUS 2.0.

OBJECTIVE: 1) To analyze the implementation of multidisciplinary care models in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients, 2) To define minimum and excellent standards of care. METHODS: A survey was sent to clinicians who already performed multidisciplinary care or were in the process of undertaking it, asking: 1) Type of multidisciplinary care model implemented; 2) Degree, priority and feasibility of the implementation of quality standards in the structure, process and result for care. In 6 regional meetings the results of the survey were presented and discussed, and the ultimate priority of quality standards for care was defined. At a nominal meeting group, 11 experts (rheumatologists and dermatologists) analyzed the results of the survey and the regional meetings. With this information, they defined which standards of care are currently considered as minimum and which are excellent. RESULTS: The simultaneous and parallel models of multidisciplinary care are those most widely implemented, but the implementation of quality standards is highly variable. In terms of structure it ranges from 22% to 74%, in those related to process from 17% to 54% and in the results from 2% to 28%. Of the 25 original quality standards for care, 9 were considered only minimum, 4 were excellent and 12 defined criteria for minimum level and others for excellence. CONCLUSIONS: The definition of minimum and excellent quality standards for care will help achieve the goal of multidisciplinary care for patients with PAs, which is the best healthcare possible.

Spanish Registry of Recent-onset Psoriatic Arthritis (REAPSER study): Aims and methodology. / Registro Español de Artritis Psoriásica de Reciente Comienzo (estudio REAPSER). Objetivos y metodología.

AIMS: To describe the methodology of REAPSER (Spanish Registry of Recent-onset Psoriatic Arthritis), its strengths and limitations. The aim of this study is to identify prognostic factors for the clinical and radiographic course in a cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) diagnosed within 2years of symptom evolution. METHODS: Multicenter, observational and prospective study (with 2-year follow-up including annual visits). Baseline visit intended to reflect patient situation before the disease course was modified by treatments prescribed in rheumatology departments. Patients were invited to participate consecutively in one of their routine visits to the rheumatologist. 211 patients were included. Following data were collected: sociodemographic variables; employment situation; family history; personal history and comorbidities; anthropometric data; lifestyle; use of healthcare services; clinical situation at the time of PsA diagnosis; joint involvement and spinal pain; pain and overall assessment; enthesitis, dactylitis and uveitis; skin and nail involvement; functional situation and quality of life; radiographic evaluation; analytical determinations; treatment; axial and peripheral flare-ups. CONCLUSIONS: The REAPSER study includes a cohort of patients with recent-onset PsA, before the disease course was modified by disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs prescribed in rheumatology departments. Exhaustive information collected in each visit is expected to be an important data source for future analysis.

Multidisciplinary Care Models for Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis. / Modelos de atención multidisciplinar en pacientes con artritis psoriásica en España.

OBJETIVE: To describe (structure, processes) of the multidisciplinary care models in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in Spain, as well as barriers and facilitators of their implementation. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed following structured interviews with 24 professionals (12 rheumatologists, 12 dermatologists who provide multidisciplinary care for patients with PsA). We collected data related to the hospital, department, population and multidisciplinary care model (type, physical and human resources, professional requirements, objectives, referral criteria, agendas, protocols, responsibilities, decision- making, research and education, clinical sessions, development and planning of the model, advantages and disadvantages of the model, barriers and facilitators in the implementation of the model. The models characteristics are described. RESULTS: We analyzed 12 multidisciplinary care models in PsA, with at least 1-2 years of experience, and 3 subtypes of models, face-to-face, parallel, and preferential circuit. All are adapted to the hospital and professionals characteristics. A proper implementation planning is essential. The involvement and empathy between professionals and an access and well-defined referral criteria are important facilitators in the implementation of a model. The management of agendas and data collection to measure the multidisciplinary care models health outcomes are the main barriers. CONCLUSIONS: There are different multidisciplinary care models in PsA that can improve patient outcomes, system efficiency and collaboration between specialists.