Qualitative interview study of rheumatology patients' experiences of COVID-19 shielding to explore the physical and psychological impact and identify associated support needs.

OBJECTIVE: Many clinically extremely vulnerable rheumatology patients have only recently ceased shielding from COVID-19, while some continue to minimise in-person contact. The objective of this study was to understand the impact of shielding and associated support needs in patients with rheumatic conditions and to understand how rheumatology teams can meet these needs both currently and in future pandemics. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: The study was conducted in the Southwest of England using a case-study design. The participants were 15 patients with rheumatic conditions who were advised to shield and/or chose to shield at any time during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Qualitative data collected via telephone and online semi-structured interviews and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen interviews were conducted. Three main themes represent the data:'Just shove them over there in the corner' captures changes in patients' self-perception. They felt different to most other people, vulnerable and left behind. The initial sense of shock was followed by a sense of loss as changes became long term.'A long and lonely road' captures patients' psychological isolation due to a perceived lack of understanding and support. This included having to prove their health status and justify their shielding behaviours, which impacted their relationships. At times, they felt abandoned by their healthcare providers.'You can't just flip a switch' captures the difficulty of getting back to pre-pandemic normal after shielding. Patients did not recognise themselves physically and mentally. They wanted to collaborate with health professionals and identified the need for specific guidance to support their recovery. CONCLUSION: Patients are dealing with lasting physical and mental effects from shielding and consequences of delayed healthcare. Health professionals need time and resources to ask about patients' well-being, identify their health needs and refer/signpost to appropriate sources of support.

How do patient reported outcome measures affect treatment intensification and patient satisfaction in the management of psoriatic arthritis? A cross sectional study of 503 patients.

OBJECTIVES: The ASSIST study investigated prescribing in routine psoriatic arthritis (PsA) care and whether the patient reported outcome: PsA Impact of Disease questionnaire (PsAID-12), impacted treatment. This study also assessed a range of patient and clinician factors and their relationship to PsAID-12 scoring and treatment modification. METHODS: Patients with PsA were selected across the UK and Europe between July 2021-March 2022. Patients completed the PsAID questionnaire, with the results shared with their physician. Patient characteristics, disease activity, current treatment methods, treatment strategies, medication changes and patient satisfaction scores were recorded. RESULTS: 503 patients recruited. 36.2% had changes made to treatment, 88.8% of this had treatment escalation. Overall, the mean PsAID-12 score was higher for patients with treatment escalation; the PsAID-12 score was associated with odds of treatment escalation (OR: 1.58; p< 0.0001). However, most clinicians reported PsAID-12 did not impact their decision to escalate treatment, instead supporting treatment reduction decisions. Physician's assessment of disease activity had the most statistically significant effect on likelihood of treatment escalation, (OR = 2.68, per 1-point score increase). Escalation was more likely in patients not treated with biologic therapies. Additional factors associated with treatment escalation included: patient characteristics, physician characteristics, disease activity and disease impact. CONCLUSION: This study highlights multiple factors impacting treatment decision making for individuals with PsA. PsAID-12 scoring correlates with multiple measures of disease severity and odds of treatment escalation. However, most clinicians reported the PsAID-12 did not influence treatment escalation decisions. PsAID scoring could be used to increase confidence in treatment de-escalation.

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 (3 studies) found a reduced response in second-line. On average, DAPSA remission (most reported outcome, 8 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.

Evaluation and Validation of a Patient-completed Psoriatic Arthritis Flare Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of a psoriatic arthritis (PsA), multidimensional, patient-completed disease flare questionnaire (FLARE). METHODS: The FLARE questionnaire was administered to 139 patients in a prospective observational study. The "gold standard" of flare was based on patient opinion. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Disease activity was measured by the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and PsA (GRAPPA) Composite Exercise (GRACE), Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI), and Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA). RESULTS: The most common symptoms of a PsA flare were musculoskeletal, followed by fatigue, frustration, loss of function, and an increase in cutaneous symptoms. The test-retest ICC for the FLARE questionnaire was 0.87 (95% CI 0.72-0.94). The optimum cut-off to identify a flare of disease was 4/10 (sensitivity 0.82, specificity 0.76; area under the curve 0.85). For those patients scoring ≥ 4, the mean score for the composite measures was as follows (score for those not reporting a flare in parentheses): PASDAS 5.3 ± 1.3 (3.1 ± 1.6); GRACE 4.5 ± 1.2 (2.2 ± 1.4); CPDAI 8.9 ± 2.5 (4.7 ± 3.1); and DAPSA 38.2 ± 20.3 (16.8 ± 14.9). In a new flare, the increase in composite measure score was calculated as follows: 1 for PASDAS and GRACE, 2 for CPDAI, and 7 for DAPSA. Agreement between the definition of flare using the cut-off of 4 from the questionnaire, and that indicated by the subject in a separate, standalone question was 0.57 (Cohen κ). CONCLUSION: A PsA flare displays escalation of symptoms and signs across multiple domains. The FLARE questionnaire has external validity in terms of both composite disease activity and overall patient opinion about the state of their condition.

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's 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.

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.

International Treatment Recommendations Update: A Report from the GRAPPA 2016 Annual Meeting.

At the 2016 annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), the treatment recommendations committee summarized its work and presented its plans for future updates. The committee announced a partnership between GRAPPA and Guideline Central to develop a pocket reference guide to the treatment recommendations. Because key new data appear regularly, the group discussed publishing periodic updates of the recommendations online through the GRAPPA Website as well as a goal of publishing another major update of the recommendations in 2020. The committee also announced that 2 GRAPPA members were awarded a grant from the International League of Associations for Rheumatology to look at potential adaptations of international treatment recommendations for resource-poor settings, particularly in South America and Africa.

Treatments for Psoriatic Arthritis, a Guide for Patients Written by Fellow Patients: A Report from the GRAPPA 2016 Annual Meeting.

In 2016, members of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) published their updated Treatment Recommendations for Psoriatic Arthritis. This paper describes how a patient-oriented guide to those treatment recommendations was developed by GRAPPA's patient research partners (PRP). We describe how the PRP developed a process for creating and implementing the guide. We also describe how we evaluated the diversity of the guide's potential patient audience, i.e., where each individual was in their diagnosis and treatment needs, and how we made the patient guide attractive, readable, and available to as broad a patient audience as possible.

Patient involvement in outcome measures for psoriatic arthritis.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous inflammatory arthritis with a varied clinical phenotype. There has been considerable international collaboration over recent years to develop and prioritise appropriate disease domains and outcome measures to capture all aspects of this complex disease. It has been recognised that patient-reported measures and physician assessments are complementary and, when used together, allow an improved reflection of disease burden. Taking this concept one step further, the experience in rheumatoid arthritis has demonstrated benefits of incorporating the patient perspective in the development of outcome measures. We report a systematic review demonstrating (1) that there has been little incorporation of the patient perspective in the development of outcome measures and domains in PsA, (2) the proceedings from the preliminary patient involvement in outcome measures for PsA (PIOMPSA) meetings, and (3) a proposed roadmap for improving patient involvement.